Over the past few years we have witnessed a growing debate over the process of globalisation that is taking place the world over, and we have also witnessed the manifold responses to globalisation. There are two aspects to the debate of globalisation. Supporters of globalisation may defy the process as bringing a new era of unrivalled freedom, creativity and prosperity. International institutions, most economists generally, most politicians and business leaders consider globalisation as, on balance, positive, contributing to economic growth and development worldwide. Those opposing globalisation include special interest groups seeing themselves or their interests adversely affected ”trade unionists in traditional industries, businesses facing tough import competition from developing countries, environmentalists and some development interests. Opponents also include a wider group who see globalisation as causing most of the problems of the world ”increasing economic insecurity and inequality, threats to the welfare state, homogenising consumer tastes, damage to the global environment, increased power of exploitative multinationals, and the undermining of sovereignty, national independence, identity and democratic processes. The more cautious debate of globalisation being nothing more than ˜some kind of Trojan horse', which is really intended on disguising the ulterior motives and hidden agendas of a powerful elite. In this essay I will analyse both sides of the debate, incorporating Giddens' theory. Does he overstate the power of globalisation in his lectures? I will use Giddens' work, as well as others, to compare and contrast theories of globalisation. First of all I need to defy the term ˜globalisation'. A phenomenon of recent years, there is not a unified recognition of the idiom and therefore is many explanations available.
The World Commission defines globalisation as:
˜ ¦a term that is used in many ways, but the