Abstract
Miguel Centeno’s and Joseph Cohen’s new Global capitalism: A sociological perspective surveys the origins of contemporary global capitalism up to the economic crisis of 2008. Their approach is informed by a broadly sociological perspective, one that understands capitalist development as the result of complex processes of social construction. As such, Centeno and Cohen challenge the reader to not just think critically about where global capitalism came from but also about where it should go. For those who already work in the areas of economic globalization, world systems theory, and international political economy, the book does not break any new ground. Nevertheless, it is a well-organized summary of some of the central scholarship in the field and would make a good text for an advanced undergraduate seminar or even for more advanced scholars who want a clear, cogent introduction to the field.
The book is divided into two parts. In the first part Centeno and Cohen provide a historical narrative of the rise and consolidation of global capitalism that begins in the 19th century and takes the reader right up to the global financial crisis of 2008. In their account, the history of global capitalism largely unfolds across three dimensions: trade, finance, and consumption. Though each discussion is fairly brief, they do an admirable job of highlighting the key trends and turning points to paint a fairly vibrant and, perhaps most importantly, coherent picture of how each of these areas of economic activity have become globalized.
In the second part of the book, Centeno and Cohen trace the significance of developments in global capitalism for three issue areas that most readers will agree are of pressing concern: what problems do global capitalist developments pose for national governance? How does the globalization of economic activity attenuate, or exacerbate patterns of social inequality within and between nations? How do societies deal with the environmental impacts of global capitalist development? None of these questions come with easy answers. In keeping with the dominant thread that runs throughout the book, Centeno and Cohen remind us that, as a construct of human social interaction, global capitalism’s history is racked by tension and contradiction and is never pre-determined.
For the most part, this is a book that covers the right kind of ground for an accessible survey of the problems and prospects of economic globalization. Yet, as the subtitle of the text denotes, Centeno and Cohen’s goal is not to give a generic account of global capitalism, but rather to give an account of global capitalism that is distinctly sociological. This is an important objective for while sociology as a discipline has a long tradition of scholarly work in this area the scholarly terrain is still dominated by economists and political scientists – notably in the study of trade, international finance and problems of international governance.
To what degree, then, do Centeno and Cohen craft a sociological lens through which to view developments in global capitalism? They do a nice job situating their analysis within what could certainly be called a broadly sociological framework, one that emphasizes the contradictions and tensions contained within seemingly linear macroeconomic transformations and offers a way of seeing the connections between macro-historical change and the lived experience of global capitalism at the national, local and individual levels. Global capitalism is defined by both the homogenizing diffusion of market logics and powerful tendencies towards instability and crisis; it is a world that is increasingly open and accessible to consumers, but also one where an individual’s ability to consume is increasingly dependent on an ever-more complex web of transactions between ever-more social actors across the globe.
Yet, while their work is clearly informed by core sociological sensibilities, it is also the case that theirs is very much a sociological perspective, not the sociological perspective. The last 20 years has seen resurgence in sociological interest in globalization, particularly economic globalization – a trend that Centeno and Cohen’s book is clearly a part of. As a result, the sociologist of today not only has vastly greater access to rich empirical data documenting the complex, dynamic reality of globalization, but, even more importantly, an increasingly nuanced set of concepts, theories and critical perspectives that make it possible to use the fruits of empirical investigation to make connections between social processes unfolding at the global, national and local scales.
Centeno and Cohen’s book is situated within a distinct corner of this field, one that sees globalization largely in terms of relationships between national states and between national states and global economic forces. On the one hand, their state-centered framework shows just how far the prevailing view of globalization has changed from the days when scholars were predicting the retreat of the state in the face of globalization’s onslaught. In this respect, this book is a strong affirmation of the continued need to take national states seriously in the study of economic globalization. That being said, the ‘state versus market’ theme that runs throughout the book often feels a bit dated. Scholars today tend to emphasize the complex inter-relationship between economic activity and political authority, seeing the state and market as mutually constituted rather than in opposition to each other. In addition, their emphasis on the state and global market forces misses some critical dimensions of contemporary global capitalism.
For example, in discussing global finance, Centeno and Cohen dismiss the significance of private financial actors writing that although ‘private actors shape financial outcomes’, ultimately ‘their decisions are profoundly influenced by governments’ (p. 68). In the face of a global financial crisis that made eminently apparent the power that large, private international banks and investment houses have over the global economic system, their effort to reaffirm the primary importance of states is a bit odd.
Similarly, in discussing issues of governance in contemporary global capitalism they argue strongly that governance is only done by national governments within the context of national states. This not only dismisses one of the more prominent, and more recent, approaches to the sociological study of globalization – namely world culture and world polity theory – but also seems to preclude the sociological investigation of growing efforts by national governments and international organizations to build global governance structures. To give just one example, a significant portion of bank regulation is now determined internationally by the Basel Committee for Bank Supervision and its Basel Accord. While these regulations do not have the rule of law to back them up, it is clearly part of the governance of the vast majority of the world’s banks.
In general, there is a striking absence of non-state actors in this book. With the exception of the chapter on marketing and consumption, which does a very nice job bringing the individual qua consumer into the story of global capitalism, it is mostly a story about states. It is a global capitalism without capitalists, without workers, without communities or social movements.
In principle there is nothing wrong with this. The study of states in the global economy is certainly central to any sociological perspective on global capitalism. But, in making a strong case for a state-centered view of global capitalism, Centeno and Cohen veer toward the kind of realist view of inter-state conflict and economic interdependency that characterizes the study of global capitalism found in the political science and international relations scholarship. This is not a bad kinship for sociology to have and indeed there has been a beneficial cross-fertilization of concepts and theories across these fields. However, because it is situated within a heavily state-centric framework, this book gives a sociological perspective on global capitalism that unfortunately misses many of the insights that sociologists have to offer.