Ravinder Kumar, Associate Professor, Department of Commerce and Business Studies, Jamia Milia Islamia, New Delhi – 110025, India

The terms Globalization and global business have attracted considerable attention in both academic and non-academic circles worldwide over the past half and one and a half decade. There is a growing realization of many markets becoming global. Free flow of capital, technology and labour and integration of various economies of the world, has overwhelmed all dimensions of work and life the world over. Trade liberalizations have fuelled the opportunities of multiplying the revenues by the firms by selling around the world and reduce their costs by producing in nations where key inputs are cheap. This, however, should not lead us to think that we are living in a purely global economy: Indeed, the vast majority of the multinational enterprises do not have a genuinely global presence, tested focusing primarily on sales within their home region, whether it is the U.S., the European Union (EU), or Japan. They primarily operate in each other's home markets, giving a regional set of activities, which is commonly confused with the globalization. Today, the world's 500 largest multinational enter prises (MNEs) from a total of nearly 35,000 MNEs, account for more than 80 percent of the world's FDI and over half of its trade. They are commonly perceived to be the causes of globalization. Yet a deeper analysis reveals that these MNEs are not really global'. Instead they operate from the triad-home-bases of the US, the European Union (EU), and Japan. In sum these industrially advanced economies have shaped globalization to further their own interests. Political factors and institutional organizations seem to reinforce business at a regional level rather than at the multilateral level required for absolute globalization.

Kumar, R. (2006). Globalization: Realty of Myth?. Skyline Business Journal, Volume 2, No. 1, pp 7-10.