Globalisation as a Global Social Contract: Cooperation or Coercion?

Ever craved sushi in Delhi or tacos in Nairobi? Or heard about China’s newest multinational opening job opportunities in Vietnam? Or perhaps the South African government extending mining rights to an American corporation? All these headlines tie to one single root, "globalisation". As a concept, globalisation revolves around different flows of capital, commodities, labour and even ideas across borders. At its core, globalisation is a multi-dimensional phenomenon having various implications and claims to transform the world into a "global village". However, here’s the catch, while globalisation promises the convergence and amalgamation of different cultures and economies, it paradoxically erodes the very identities and structures it seeks to collectivise.

image credits - Financial Times

Rousseau’s Social Contract and Globalisation

Centuries ago, Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote about "social contract", an agreement among individuals to form a collective body politic. By entering into this contract, individuals surrender their personal freedoms, and states surrender their sovereign rights to the collective "general will," which represents the common good. This doesn't mean losing freedom, rather transforming it into a civil liberty that aligns with the collective interest of people at large. However, while  this general will  may reflect the interests of specific entities like multinational corporations, powerful nations, or international institutions, it may not represent the true collective interest of the masses, which can further lead to inequality and exploitation of the poor. This argument of Rousseau remains highly relevant to the modern context of globalisation; it can help us to understand and question the legitimacy of global systems wherein powerful entities might demand sacrifice of sovereign rights but do not reciprocate them.

Historical Roots of Globalisation: The Silk Route

 Globalisation as a phenomenon is not novel to humans; ever since ancient times humans have found their ways to trade in commodities, ideas and labour. One classic example is the "Silk Route", which is one of the oldest travelled routes for commerce between Asia and the West. The route was the epitome of economic, cultural, religious and spiritual interactions at that time. Marco Polo’s travelogue "The Travels of Marco Polo" Illustrates how interconnected Eurasia had become through the exchange of silk, spices, stories, and scientific knowledge. In many ways, modern globalisation mirrors this ancient pattern. 

However, the speed and the scale at which these ideas, capital, labour and commodities flow is the distinguishing factor here. Technological advancements and the increasing awareness of the interconnectedness that globalisation sustains have led to its tremendous rise across the world.

Appadurai’s Scapes and Uneven Global Flows

Now let's delve deeper into the flows of globalisation. As we have already seen, there are four flows, i.e. commodities, capital, ideas and people that are involved. A similar and more comprehensive idea was proposed by an anthropologist Arjun Appadurai in his essay "Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy". Here he explains the flows as ‘scapes’ shaping the global cultural economy, namely ethnoscapes (movement of people), technoscapes (technology), financescapes (capital), mediascapes (media and images), and ideoscapes (ideologies and ideas). 

We see these scapes all around ourselves: our social media feeds being filled with Korean dramas is actually mediascapes, being able to buy Italian luxury in South Africa reflects financescape, Miyawaki technique being practiced in India for tree plantation demonstrates technoscape and ideoscape and Dubai hosting the world diaspora is ethnoscapes. 

Saskia Sassen and the Restricted Movement of People

However, it is crucial to note that despite all this, the movement of people (ethnoscapes) is the most restricted amongst all of these flows. Many countries, especially the developed ones, still guard their borders with strict visa policies to protect the interests of their citizens. Yet this guarding of borders is a relatively recent phenomenon — until the early 20th century, migration across countries and even continents was common and largely unregulated. Entire nations such as the United States, Canada, and Australia were significantly shaped by waves of migration. However, in the era of globalisation, the politics of mobility have shifted dramatically. While goods, capital, and information cross borders freely, human movement is increasingly policed. As sociologist Saskia Sassen points out, this restriction is not accidental. In her work The Global City, she argues that while globalisation encourages the free flow of capital and information, it simultaneously introduces new regimes to restrict human mobility, particularly targeting low-skilled migrants from poorer nations. This paradox reveals how globalisation can be uneven and exclusionary, privileging some flows and countries while constraining others.

 Political Implications: Sovereignty vs. Global Governance

Globalisation, being a multi-dimensional phenomenon, has various implications, one of which is political. While globalisation has brought the world together, it has also eroded the state's capacity to rule its citizens. Countries, which were once welfare states, are now increasingly withdrawing from their core functions and are becoming minimalist ones.  The market becomes the supreme determinant, exposing people to its uncertainties. As Rousseau argued that if the structures of the economy are agreed upon by the masses, a general will is created and collective security can be attained. But the question here is, "who creates the terms of this general will?" "Are global institutions (UN, IMF, WTO) based on a social contract?" or "Do all countries surrender equal sovereignty under a shared 'general will'?".

It is also important to note that states are consciously retreating from certain functions they consider non-essential, while still retaining significant control. The attempt to make nation states and international organisations like the WTO, UN, IMF, etc, can be seen as an attempt to create a global general will. Individuals and states give up their sovereignty to attain collective liberty to collaborate on global issues like climate change, etc. This is what Rousseau calls collective benefits. Globalisation has enabled civil society groups, activists, and NGOs to collaborate and influence global decisions empowering ordinary people beyond national borders, which reflects a more inclusive general will.  Moreover, with better technology at its disposal, the government can now better serve its citizens and can tend to their needs in a much more efficient manner.

But if technology allows a government to monitor every citizen’s move, does it empower democracy—or dilute it into digital authoritarianism? Citizens today give their data to not just governmental organizations but also to different private corporations like Google, Microsoft, etc., which is framed as a social contract, but it often lacks genuine transparency, consent, or accountability. While technology and globalization promise greater efficiency and cooperation, their use in surveillance raises questions about the erosion of the social contract, especially when consent is compromised.

Economic Paradox: Rodrik’s Trilemma & IMF Case Study

Economic implications are also related to globalisation, who gains what or more importantly who loses what is the real question here. A headline goes: Pakistan signs a bailout package with IMF, terms are simple Pakistan gives up control over its interest rates, subsidies or welfare spending. And in exchange it gets access to international credit, investment, and trade. Here, it’s a global level “social contract” of nations giving up natural sovereignty to enter civil globalisation. But Rousseau’s test is not just about the agreement existing — it’s about whether it is just or not. This tension is vividly captured in “impossibility trilemma", an idea proposed by Dani Rodrik in his work "The Globalization Paradox". He argues that you cannot have Deep economic globalisation, Democratic politics and National sovereignty simultaneously. Nations must choose between democracy, sovereignty, and globalisation. Only two can exist at once. It’s like schools asking students  to choose between free weekends, more holidays, or a better curriculum, when they can only get two of them.

 So, Pakistan’s IMF bailout is not just a financial agreement, but a surrender of economic self-rule, without democratic input from its own citizens or global institutions. This mirrors Rousseau's dilemma that the pursuit of deep economic globalisation can undermine both democracy and sovereignty. Another major contention is that due to these agreements, governments might pull off the welfare subsidies, making it difficult for poorer sections of society.  Do you think, does  this social contract address the needs of the poor?

image credit - istock

So, it becomes crucial for the governments to ensure some social safety nets to protect the interests of these  marginalised sections of society. If these minimum standards of living are ensured, then maybe the social contract becomes just with the collective benefit of all. After all, it is the advent of multinational companies that  ensured the GDP growth of the developing world. Globalisation does open employment opportunities and contributes to rising household incomes and savings. But here lies a paradox,

Will the poor ever break the cycle of poverty, or will globalisation merely upgrade their cages with basic sustenance?

If global integration offers only a marginal uplift without democratic control, long-term security, or cultural agency, then the contract remains fundamentally unequal. Rousseau would argue that true liberty means shaping the rules, not just surviving under them.

A deeper critique would be that perhaps globalisation was never about equal cooperation at all. As Kwame Nkrumah warned in Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism (1965), the real engine of globalisation might not be mutual development, but the preservation of the old hierarchies but with new tools. Finding  out that France still controls the currency of over 14 African nations through the CFA franc, made Nkrumah’s warning feel urgent and not just historical. He argues that colonialism has never ended, it has just changed its form; instead of political control,  its now moving towards an economic one. Economic institutions like the IMF and World Bank became tools through which former colonial powers continued to dominate the Global South. But this time it was not military force, but debt, aid conditionalities, and corporate control. In this view, globalisation does not liberate but rather restructures subordination, reproducing the same dynamics of control and restriction that colonialism once upheld.

Cultural Homogenization vs. Heterogenization

 Cultural implications certainly cannot be left behind. Due to globalisation, we have witnessed a rise of uniform culture, not a global one. This is referred to as Cultural Homogenisation, wherein countries witness a common culture and individuality fades.  As Benjamin Barber warns in Jihad vs. McWorld, globalisation often imposes a monoculture in the name of efficiency where Big Macs, Marvel movies, blue jeans and Spotify playlists replace centuries of local tradition. Wherein everyone is trying to buy into that American dream. Even I thought wearing jeans and dresses made me more modern or civilised. This way Rousseau’s ideal of collective will becomes hollow if the will being expressed is not truly diverse. 

But on the brighter side, globalisation expands one’s  choices - one  can wear a kimono or a satin dress, their  choice. Or how about the fusion of different cultures knowing that blue jeans will go perfectly with a  handspun Khadi Kurta.  In fact, cultural homogenisation is often accompanied by cultural heterogenisation, a paradox where global exposure encourages local creativity. It states that cultures are becoming more and more distinct in themselves. Not to forget, here too lies power dynamics of the two interacting cultures wherein the dominant often frames the terms of fusion and not all identities survive the blend. This caution was also given by Arjun Appadurai in his work Global Cultural Flows that not every culture travels with equal power.

Conclusion: Toward a Just Global Social Contract

It is evident that liberty is not found in absolute, restraint-less freedom, but in consciously chosen interdependence. A social contract built not on coercion, but on consent and justice. Globalisation, at its best, promises this vision that nations and individuals should cooperate to solve shared problems, pool sovereignty to gain collective strength. But when contracts are signed without equity and cultures consumed without reciprocity, or when power flows unidirectionally, Rousseau’s dream begins to collapse under its own contradictions.

Globalisation is not inherently unjust, but it must constantly pass the test of legitimacy: Whose will is being expressed? Who benefits? Who decides? These questions aren’t just theoretical—they matter to me. I live in a country shaped by a colonial legacy, reliant on global aid and trade. I’ve seen how promises of development coexist with everyday inequality. 

As we navigate this complex global order, the challenge is not whether to globalise , but how to do so justly. The future lies not in resisting the interconnectedness globalisation offers, but in rewriting the terms of our global social contract that preserves diversity and reflects the true general will of all.

---

By Bushra Khan

Bushra Khan is an incoming B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at Jamia Millia Islamia. She writes at the intersection of law, society, and youth-led change, with a growing interest in corporate governance and technology policy. Her work reflects a commitment to accessible legal education and critical engagement with contemporary issues. Outside her academic and writing pursuits, she explores thrift culture, works on sustainability projects, and builds small tools with AI for law aspirants.

LinkedIn

---

References

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract. Translated by Maurice Cranston, Penguin Classics, 1968, pp. 45–60.  

Accessed via Project Gutenberg: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/46333. Accessed 1 May 2025.

Appadurai, Arjun. “Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy.” Public Culture, vol. 2, no. 2, 1990, pp. 1–33.  

Accessed via Duke University Press: https://read.dukeupress.edu/public-culture/article-abstract/2/2/1/32014. Accessed 1 May 2025.

Sassen, Saskia. The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton University Press, 1991.  

Accessed via JSTOR: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt2jc93q. Accessed 1 May 2025.

Rodrik, Dani. The Globalisation Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy. W.W. Norton & Company, 2011.  

Accessed via Harvard University: https://drodrik.scholar.harvard.edu/publications/globalization-paradox-democracy-and-future-world-economy. Accessed 1 May 2025.

Nkrumah, Kwame. Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism. International Publishers, 1965.  

Accessed via Marxists Internet Archive: https://www.marxists.org/ebooks/nkrumah/nkrumah-neocolonialism.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2025.

Barber, Benjamin. Jihad vs. McWorld: How Globalism and Tribalism Are Reshaping the World. Ballantine Books, 1996.  

Accessed via Penguin Random House: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/8454/jihad-vs-mcworld-by-benjamin-barber/. Accessed 1 May 2025.