(icmef 2012) proceeding developing standardized economic drivers f

277 

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MANAGEMENT, ECONOMICS 

AND FINANCE (ICMEF 2012) PROCEEDING 

15 th - 16 th OCTOBER 2012. HILTON HOTEL, KUCHING, SARAWAK, MALAYSIA 

ISBN: 978-967-5705-09-0. WEBSITE: w w w . g l o b a l r e s e a r c h . c o m . m y 

DEVELOPING STANDARDIZED ECONOMIC DRIVERS FOR MEASURING THE DEPTH 

OF ECONOMIC GLOBALIZATION: MALAYSIA AS A CASE STUDY 

Nik Fanidautty Bte Nik Ab Majid 

College of Business Management & Accounting, 

University Tenaga Nasional, 

Kampus Sultan Haji Ahmad Shah 

Pahang, Malaysia 

Tel: 609-4552042, Fax: 609-4552006 

fanidauty@uniten.edu.my 

Associate Prof. Dr. Mahmoud Kh Mahmoud Almsafir 

College of Graduate Study, 

University Tenaga Nasional, 

Kampus Putra Jaya. 

Tel: 609-4552042, Fax: 609-4552006 

mahmoud@uniten.edu.my 

ABSTRACT 

Globalization has originally started as a wave and become a well known terminology in the developed 

world since the fourth quarter of the last century. Since then every government has claimed that its 

economy is globalized. However, it is obvious nowadays that every single economic activity can become 

globalized, but nobody can be sure of how far this or that economy is globalised. The main goal of this 

paper is to develop and calculate globalization index of Malaysia’s economy for the 1970-2011 period 

by using new set of economic drivers namely, total trade with Japan and United State (US), number of 

foreign companies in Malaysia and total foreigners’ assets in Malaysia. New set of Economic Drivers was 

selected due to its influence on international growth rate and its status/function as the most integrated 

drivers in economic globalization process. Results show that Malaysia’s Economy is more globalized 

during the period of 1991-2010 as compared with the period of 1970-1990 using economic drivers. The 

main contribution for this situation is due to diversification in the number of international trading 

partners. 

Keywords: 

Globalization, standardized drivers; measuring. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

278 





1. INTRODUCTION 

All countries in the world are increasingly interested in the position and potentials of their economies in 

the period of globalization. These interests are supported by studies that show that countries that 

actively participate in the globalization processes will achieve higher positive effects of globalization. 

According to Hirst and Thompson, (1992), globalization will increase in volumes of trade, increase 

volumes of foreign direct investment (Koechlin, 1995), increase volumes of trading in world’s foreign 

exchange markets (Helleiner, 1994) or reduce transportation and communication cost (Krugman and 

Venables, 1995). Globalization causes rapid changes in trade relations, financial flows, and the mobility 

of labor across the world and has brought the (developed) national economies closer together and 

made them more strongly interrelated. 

Active participation in globalization will increase the possibilities for higher economic growth and 

welfare. The framework of these conditions depends upon the theoretical concept of global economy. 

The term globalization is used in many different contexts. Indeed it has become a buzzword with a 

multitude of meanings and interpretations. Some researchers, who study globalization, define global 

economy by means of the indicators of international integration of markets, such as international trade, 

foreign direct investment, activities of transnational companies, international flows and information 

communication technology (Kearney, 2004; Lockwood, 2001; Andersen ad Herbertsson, 2003; Dreher, 

2003; Heshmati,2006). 

Globalization is a true phenomenon by which market and production in different countries are 

becoming increasingly interdependent due to the dynamics of trade in goods and services and the flows 

of capital and technology (Brinkman, 2002). This definition is supported by IMF, Kumar (2003) and 

Robert (2002), who defined globalization as, “the growing economic interdependence of countries 

worldwide through the increasing volume and variety of cross-border transaction in goods and services 

and of international capital flows, and also through the more rapid and widespread diffusion of 

technology.” In the broadest sense, Kiggundu (2002) and Friedman (2005) defined the term of 

globalization as, “a cross-border flow of goods, commodities, information and knowledge,” or in other 

words, it is economic globalization that involves relatively unrestricted flow of materials, goods, 

information and capital across national borders. 

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 

A large number of empirical studies have made use of a variety of variables to test the globalization of 

economics. Perhaps due to difficulty in measuring globalization, different researchers have used many 

different measures to examine the level of globalization by using a few indicators such as economics, 

social and political. Are some indicators more significant indicators than others? We don’t have an 

accurate answer. It is depending on how you define the term of globalization and what you are looking 

for in your study. For example, the World Bank (1996) has developed a “speed of integration index” 

based on FDI to- GDP ratio, trade to GDP ratio, institutional Investor credit ratings and manufacturing 

exports as a share of exports. This index is formulated to measure the speed of integration by taking the 

simple average of the changes in these four indicators (expressed as standard scores) over the sample 

period. Taking a slightly different approach, Ismihan (2008) developed a single composite indicator 

which measures the relative level of integration of a particular domestic economy to global economy in

279 





a given year and over time. This approach can provide more comprehensive information and would 

enable policy-makers and researchers to compare and rank globalization performances of different 

countries, country groups and regions in a given year and over time. In constructing the economic 

globalization index, Ismihan (2008) used outcome indicators of global integration, namely the ratios of 

gross FDI-to GDP, foreign trade to GDP and gross private capital flows to GDP. These three indicators 

capture the three main dimension of economic globalization process: investment (production), trade 

and finance. On the other hand, H. Yanikkaya (2003) measures openness by using simple trade shares, 

which is exports plus import divided by GDP. A large number of studies that used trade shares in GDP 

found, as reviewed in Harrison (1996), a positive and strong relationship with growth. In addition, export 

shares and import shares in GDP are also used and entered positively in cross-country growth 

regressions. Results for these variables are consistent with studies by Edwards (1993) Frankel and Romer 

(1999) and Irwin and Tervio (2002). 

An ideal measure of a country’s liberalization would be an index that includes all the indicators such as 

economic, social and political. Dreher (2006), Heshmati (2006) have developed ‘multidimensional index 

of globalization’ in order to analyze which countries have become most global and show how 

globalization developed over time. By using The Kearney index four major components are composed: 

economic integration, personal contact, technology and political engagement. The index quantifies 

economic integration by combining data on four key variables, namely trade, foreign direct investment, 

portfolio capital flows and income payments and receipts. For measure technological connection 

variables used are internet users, internet hosts and secures servers. The index assesses political 

engagement by taking the number of international organization and UN Security Council missions in 

which each country participates and the number of foreign embassies that each country hosts. Personal 

contact is charted by looking at international travel and tourism, international telephone traffic and 

across borders money transfer. The four dimensions are then aggregated into an overall summary 

measure of globalization (Anderson, 2003). 

To compare the relative globalization between South Asia, East Asia and Middle East, Looney and 

Frederiksen (2004) in their studies used factor and discriminant analyses to generate indices of 

globalization. Sixteen variables are categorized under Trade flows, Financial flows, Communication and 

knowledge flows as well as labor flows. Consistent with studies by Mujahid (2002), the study suggests 

that globalization is in the manner in which it is perceived by various governments/groups and can be 

categorized into four main perspectives: economic, technological, development and societal. The 

economic perspective focuses primarily on the growth of world trade as a proportion of and the 

explosion of foreign direct investment whereas the technologies are focused on the communication and 

transport sectors. 

Vito Bobek and Romana (2005) introduced the systemic approach towards measuring globalization of 

the economy that is based on the theory of systemic framework of national competitiveness and 

economic growth. They construct the composite index of global economy by the principal components 

analysis on the basis of 83 individual indicators where all individual indicators are categorized under five 

basis sub indices namely, productive resources, technology, organizational arrangements, product 

market characteristic, international business activities, institutional framework and government role. 

According to Miles (2004), globalization is a freedom in economy. Economic freedom is reduced when 

taxes, government expenditures (e.g. subsidies) and regulation are substituted for personal choice, 

voluntary exchange and market coordination. Restrictions that limit entry into occupations and business

280 





activities also retard economic freedom. To measure economic freedom, the Heritage Foundation/Wall 

street Journal Index takes ten different factors into account: trade policy, fiscal burden of government, 

government intervention in the economy, monetary policy, banking and finance, capital flow and foreign 

investment, wages and prices, property rights, regulation and informal market. The index provides a 

framework for understanding most of the objectives of US reforms efforts in the region: how open 

countries are to competition; the degree of state intervention in the economy whether through 

taxation, spending or overregulation and the strength and independence of a country’s judiciary to 

enforce rules and protect private properties. Some countries may have freedom in all factors; others 

may have freedom in just a few. One of the most important findings of researches carried out using the 

index is that, economic freedom is required in all aspects of economic life (Looney, 2005). 

Economic globalization indicators undertaken by the OECD (2005) clearly show that the current 

indicators do not reflect the new reality. Its conclusion is that there is no connection between the 

importance that globalization has acquired and the improvements in the available indicators, which are 

inordinately based on the old concept of market openness (Aribbas, 2007). Studies by Aribbas propose 

globalization measures of international economic integration based on distinguishing and combining the 

degrees of openness and of connection - both direct and indirect- of the underlying economies in the 

foreign trade networks. They used Standard of Perfect International Integration (SPII) which represents 

a bench-mark that not only requires countries to be more open, but also requires them to attain a full 

and geographically unbiased development of the network of connection linking economics. They used 

data on trade flow such as volume of export, import and country’s share of world output for 59 

countries for the 1967-2004 period. The findings show that trade integration is higher than what 

traditional openness indicators suggest. 

The main objective of this paper is to measure the depth of Malaysian economy’s globalization between 

the years of 1970-2010. New set of economic drivers are developed to calculate and analyze 

globalization index on Malaysia’s economy. New set of Economic Drivers was selected due to its 

influence on international growth rate and the most integrated drivers in economic globalization 

process. Based on the above cited theoretical and empirical literatures, the following hypotheses 

referring to the new set of economic drivers for measuring globalization were proposed. 

H1: Malaysia’s Economy is more globalized during the period of 1991-2010 as compared 

with the period of 1970-1990. 

H2: Malaysia’s Economy is more globalized during the first decade of the 21st century 

comparing with the 1990s using Economic Drivers. 

H3: Malaysia’s Economy is more globalized during the first decade of the 21st century as 

comparing with the 1990s using Socio-economic Drivers. 

3. DATA AND METHODOLOGY 

In this study, we are going to use a new set of economic drives for developing globalization index. 

Statistical method is used in this paper for calculating globalization index. Globalization index developed 

in this study covers three aspects: economic drivers, social drivers and political drivers. To measure 

these aspects, nine drivers have been combined to three sub-indexes namely Index of economic

281 





globalization, Index of political globalization and Index of social globalization. These sub-indexes are 

aggregated in one single Index of Globalization. 

Index of economic globalization 

Like other globalization drivers, total trade intensity is included as a measure of the intensity of 

economic globalization. In this paper, to measure the level of economic globalization, four new drives 

are used. 

i. Total trade Japan as a sum of import and export of goods and services in Malaysia 

(percent of GDP). 

ii. Total trade US as a sum of import and export of goods and services in Malaysia (percent 

of GDP). 

iii. Total Number of foreign companies in Malaysia. 

iv. Total Foreign assets in Malaysia (percent of GDP). 

According Rahman (1997) and Liang (2011) Japan and United State were Malaysia’s trading partners 

which made up to more than 70% of Malaysia’s total trade flow during the 1970-2009 periods. The total 

trade with these countries has a big effect on the volume of international trade in Malaysia. Therefore, 

in this study, we assume that the lesser the amount of Malaysia's trade with the U.S. and Japan, the 

increasingly more global Malaysia is as it is having more connections with other countries and vice versa. 

Meanwhile, Malaysia has attracted a significant increase in the number of projects and levels of 

investments in the manufacturing sector. The Government has introduced several initiatives to improve 

business environment and encourage investments in Malaysia. Malaysia has signed several Free Trade 

agreements which include an Investment Chapter or separate Investment Agreements with elements of 

protection, liberalization, promotion and facilitation of investments. In this paper, we used total number 

of foreign companies in Malaysia and total foreign assets in Malaysia to measure index of economic 

globalization. Therefore, we assume that, increase in number of foreign companies and foreign assets in 

Malaysia will make Malaysia’s economy more globalized. 

Index of social globalization 

To encapsulate migration and the international linkages that come with the movement of population 

between different countries, we use the number of tourists that visit Malaysia. Tourism has grown 

steadily in Malaysia as well as other countries during the century due to cheaper air transport. 

Meanwhile, the number of internet users represents intensity of technological aspect of globalization. 

However, as the data on number of internet users and number of international tourist arrivals in 

Malaysia are only available for the year 1990 to 2011, it is impossible to distinguish with complete 

certainty. Therefore, further discussion of social globalization index based on data from 1990 to 2011 is 

needed. To measure the level of social globalization, three drives are used namely;

282 





i. Number of international tourist arrivals from worldwide. 

ii. Number of air transport carrier departures worldwide. 

iii. Number of Internet users 

Index of political globalization 

Not all of the data are available for the target year; several drivers under index of political globalization 

were extrapolated from the older data. Since year to year changes tend to be small in those drivers we 

don’t expect this to have a large impact on the results. Therefore, in this paper, to measure the level of 

political globalization, drivers used are number of embassies in country, membership in international 

organizations and participation in U.N Security Council Mission (Dreher, 2006). 

In order to calculate index of globalization, each variable has been transformed to index on zero to 100 

scales (Dreher, 2005; Marten, 2009; and Martens & Zywietz, 2006). Index of 100 shows the maximum 

value for a specific variable for the period of 1970-2011 and denotes more globalization, while index of 

zero shows minimum value of index. All drivers except total trade Japan as a sum of import and export 

of goods and services in Malaysia (percent of GDP) and total trade US as a sum of import and export of 

goods and services in Malaysia (percent of GDP), are assumed when higher value of the variable 

indicated higher globalization. The formula that has been used for transformation is; 

For the variable of total trade Japan as a sum of import and export of goods and services in Malaysia 

(percent of GDP) and total trade US as a sum of import and export of goods and services in Malaysia 

(percent of GDP), higher value of the variable indicates lover level of globalization, so the formula for 

transformation is; 

The weights for calculating index of globalization are in a way that Index of economic globalization has 

weight of 35%, index of social globalization has weight of 37% and index of political globalization has 

weight of 28% (Dreher, 2005, Martens, 2009; Martens & Zywietz, 2006). Indexes consist of sub indexes, 

and sum of weights of each sub index is 100. Regardless of weighting method used, weights are 

essential value judgments. For maximum transparency, we relied on equal weighting on sub drivers 

(Martens 2009). Weights multiply with transformed value of indexes that value from to zero to 100 

scales in order to get overall globalization index. Table 1 shows the drivers included in calculation and 

weights for each drivers, each sub index and index.

283 





Table 1: Variables and Weights of Globalization Index 

Variables 

Weights 

A. Economic Drivers 35% 

Total trade Japan with Malaysia 

Total trade US with Malaysia 

No. of Foreign Companies in Malaysia 

Total Foreign Assets in Malaysia 

25% 

25% 

25% 

25% 

B. Social Drivers 37% 

Number of international tourist arrivals from worldwide 

Number of air transport carrier departures worldwide 

Number of Internet users 

33.3% 

33.3% 

33.3% 

C. Political Drivers 28% 

Number of embassies 

Number of memberships in international organization 

Participation in U.N security Council Mission 

33.3% 

33.3% 

33.3% 

In empirical analysis we used data for Malaysia in the period of 1970-2011. The sources of data for this 

paper are: World Bank, World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, Department of Statistic 

Malaysia, Malaysia Industrial Department Authority (MIDA) and Malaysia Investment development 

Authority (MARTRED). 

4. RESULT 

4.2. Final results on Globalization index of Malaysia 

Table 2: Globalization Index of Malaysia for Period 1990-2000. 

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 

Economic Globalization Index 16.46 16.82 14.58 14.96 19.23 18.40 16.39 14.37 16.35 16.68 18.68 

Social Globalization Index 4.52 7.77 12.21 11.19 13.23 13.26 14.12 13.67 8.92 9.37 13.15 

Political Globalization Index 17.12 17.45 18.73 19.43 20.42 20.76 20.24 20.58 20.50 20.72 20.76 

Malaysia Globalization Index 38.1 42.04 45.52 45.58 52.88 52.42 50.75 48.62 45.77 46.77 52.59

284 





Table 3: Globalization Index of Malaysia for Period 2001-2011. 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Economic Globalization Index 21.02 20.49 23.15 29.82 27.84 30.03 30.47 28.42 25.99 27.04 27.39 

Social Globalization Index 15.51 19.75 13.21 18.42 20.56 19.14 25.30 23.95 25.23 34.44 35.86 

Political Globalization Index 21.57 22.55 22.64 22.88 22.91 23.31 23.54 23.84 23.81 24.22 24.52 

Malaysia Globalization Index 58.1 62.79 59 71.12 71.31 72.48 79.31 77.49 75.03 85.7 87.77 

Table 2 and 3 show the results of calculation of globalization index of Malaysia in the period from 1990 

to 2011. Globalization index had strong and constant growth and registered double growths in 2011. 

Globalization Index of Malaysia had targeted period average year growth of 49.67% with a value of 38.1 

in year 1990 to 87.77 in year 2011. If we compare average value of Economic, social and political index 

of globalization in that period (Chart 1), Economic index has a significant influence on the value of 

overall Globalization index of Malaysia. Economic and social index increased their values showing 

increasing liberalization of Malaysia’s economy. 

Chart 1: Globalization Index of Malaysia: Economic, Social and Political Driver For Period 1990-2011 

If we compare the value of Economic index of Globalization between 1970-1998 and 1990-2011 in chart 

2, we will find that Malaysia’s economy was more globalized during the 1990-2011 period. The effects of 

globalization of international trade in Malaysia are most perceivable in trade sector. Nowadays the 

government is actively exploring opportunities in new markets to support domestic-based industries, 

including small and medium enterprises. Free trade agreements are an effective mechanism to expand 

market reach and to date Malaysia has concluded eleven such agreements: six regional agreements with 

countries such as the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of Korea (ROK) through the 

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and five bilateral agreements with Japan, Pakistan, New 

Zealand, India and Chile respectively. In the first decade of 21 century, Malaysia further expanded its 

trade engagement by starting negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (TPP)

285 





Agreement, the Malaysia-European Union Free Trade Agreement (MEUFTA), and the Malaysia-Turkey 

Free Trade Agreement (MTFTA). These agreements offer additional avenues for cross border trade and 

investments. This shows that Malaysia began to diversify its trading partners in an effort to reduce 

dependence on the US and Japan. 

Chart 2: Globalization Index of Malaysia: Comparison of Economic Drivers Between 1970-1989 and 

1990-2011 

Chart 3 shows that Malaysia’s Economy is more globalized during the first decade of the 21st century as 

compared with the 1990s, using Socio-economic Drivers. The biggest influence in index of Social 

globalization in the first decade of 21 century had driver’s data on information flow. The drivers with 

biggest growth in Social globalization index in this period are Internet users. It is due to growing trend of 

Internet users in the last three years as Malaysia moved towards advanced information, 

communications and multimedia services. In 2004 the number of subscribers was 2.9 million, in 2005 it 

increased to 3.5 million, and in 2006 the number of subscribers in Malaysia was close to five million 

(MITI, 2010). The number of internet users continued to increase by 49.6% in year 2010. This driver has 

a big influence on index of social globalization in the period of first decade of 21 century. 

Chart 3: Globalization Index of Malaysia: Comparison of Social-economic Drivers Between 1990s and 

First Decade of 21 Century 

150.00 

100.00 

50.00 

- 

1990s 

First Decade 0f 21 Century

286 





5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 

Result of analysis and calculation of Globalization in Malaysia show that in the period from 1990-2010, 

Globalization index had consistent growth and its value increased from year to year due to increase in 

trade volume. If we compare index of globalization between 1990s and first decade of 21 century, 

Malaysia’s economy is more globalized in the first decade of 21 century where the biggest influence on 

globalization index was trade volume. Malaysia further globalized its economy by signing new free trade 

agreements. As the 24th largest trading nation in the world, strengthening trade and economic 

relations with as many countries as possible is essential to Malaysia. 

In our view, quantitative assessment of globalization is a complex matter since there is no generally 

accepted valuation methodology. Attempting to measure a country’s level of globalization, different set 

of drivers and its different methodologies are used in calculating of globalization index. The use of 

various assessment methodologies generates different results. In choosing the drives, its status must be 

the most integrated drivers in globalization process in that country. In the case of Malaysia, we use total 

trade with Japan and US as a new economic driver to measure the level of globalization due to influence 

on international trade. If the volume of trade with these two countries increases from year to year, it is 

still not showing that Malaysia economy is globalized. It is because increase in volume of trade with the 

same country does not reflect globalization of economy. Globalization is a situation of having more 

connection or relations with many countries especially in trade. The less volume of trade with these two 

countries shows that we have more trading partner and economy is more globalized. The best drivers to 

describe the situation in Malaysia are total trade Japan as a sum of import and export of goods and 

services in Malaysia (percent of GDP), total trade USA as a sum of import and export of goods and 

services in Malaysia (percent of GDP), total number of foreign companies in Malaysia and total Foreign 

assets in Malaysia (percent of GDP). 

REFERENCES 

Almsafir, M. K. 2002. Economic Globalization, Hegemony of the north and the impacts on the south. 

House of wisdom, Baghdad, Iraq. 

Andersen, T. and Herbertsson, T.T.2003. Measuring globalization. Discussion Paper, No. 817, Institute 

for the Study of Labor, Bonn. 

Arribas, I., Perez, F., Tortosa-Ausina, E., and Dreher A. 2009. Measuring globalization of international 

trade: Theory and evidence .(World Development) Vol.37 127-145,2009. 

Arribas. I, Francisco, P. and Tortosa-Ausina, E . 2008. On the Dynamics of Globalization. Published in: 

Documentos de Trabajo - Fundación BBVA 9 (2008) http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/16007/ 

Bobek. V. and Romana K.V. 2005. The signification and the feasibility of measuring globalization of 

economy. Emerald,. Industrial Management & Data Systems. Vol. 105. No. 5. 

Brinkman ,R. and Brinkman,. 2002. Corporate power and the globalization process. International Journal 

of Social Economics 29, 730-752.

287 





Clark, E., Lund A. 2000. Globalization of a commercial property market: the case of Copenhagen 

.Geoforum 31 . 467-475. 

Dreher, A . 2006. Does globalization affect growth? Evidence from a new index of globalization. Applied 

Economics, 1466-4283, Volume 38, Issue 10, 2006, Pages 1091 – 1110 

Dreher, A. 2006. The influence of globalization on taxes and social policy: An empirical analysis for OECD 

countries. European Journal of Political Economy. Vol.22 (2006) 179-201. 

Edwards, S. 1993. Openess, trade liberalization, and growth in developing countries. Journal of 

Development Literature 31, 1358-1393. 

Friedman, T.L.,2005. The World is Flat: A Brief History for the Twenty-First Century. Farrar, Strauss and 

Giroux, New York. 

Gemmell, N., Kneller , R. Sanz I. 2008. Foreign investment, international trade and the size and structure 

of public expenditures. European Journal of Political Economy 24 151–171 

Halit Yanikkaya. 2003. Trade Openness and economic growth: a cross-country empirical investigation. 

Journal of Development Economics 72, 57-89. 

Heshmati, A. 2006. Measurement of multidimensional Index of Globalization. Global Economy Journal. 

Volume 6, Issue 2. 

Hirst, P. and Thompson G . 1996, Globalization in Question: The International Economy and the 

possibilities of Governanc. Cambridge: Polity Press: 

http://www.labournet.net/docks2/9704/h&trev.htm 

International Monetary Fund. 1997. Meeting the challenges of globalization in the advance economics. 

Http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/WEOMAY/Weocon.htm Chapter 3. 

Irwin , D. A. and Tervio, M. 2002. Does trade raise income? Evidence from the twentieth century. Journal 

of International Economics 58, 1-18. 

Ismihan ,M., Olgun H. and Fatma M. 2008 .Globalization of National Economic, 1975-2005. International 

Research Journal of Finance and Economics. Issue14. 

Kearney, A. T. 2004. Measuring globalization . Foreign Policy Magazine. http://www.atkearney.com 

Kefa ,M. O. , Ben D. B. , Bassens D., Devriendt L., Frank Witlox F. 2011. Airline connectivity as a measure 

of the globalization of African cities. Applied Geography, 31 ,609-620 

Kinggundu, M.N., 2002. Managing Globalization in Developing Countries and Transition Economies: 

Building Capacities of a Changing world. Praeger Publisher, Westport.

288 





Koechlin, T . 1995. The Globalization of investment. Contemporary Economic Policy: Volume 13, issue 1. 

Page 92-100.January 1995. 

Krugman, Paul, and Anthony J. Venables. 1995. Globalization and the inequality of nations. Quarterly 

Journal of Economics 110.4: 857-80. 

Kumar. V.S.A. 2003. A critical methodology of globalization: Politics of the 21st century?. Indiana Journal 

of Global Legal Studies 10, 87-111. 

Looney, E.R. 2005. Why has the Middle East Been so Slow to Globalize? .Review of Middle East 

Economics and Finance.Vol 3. No.3, 173-202. 

Looney, R. and Frederiksen P.C. 2004. An assessment of relative globalization in Asia during the 1980s 

and 1990s. Journal of Asian Economics, 15(2004)-267-285. 

Miles, M. Feulner, E., O’Grandy, M.A. and Eiras, A. (2004) Index of Economic Freedom. 

http://courses.wcupa.edu/rbove/eco343/060compecon/general%20comparative/Index2006.pdf# 

page=73 

Prasad, E., Rogoff, K., Shang Jin Wei and Kose M.A. 2003 Effects of Financial Globalization on Developing 

Countries: Some Empirical Evidence. INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND. 

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2006/wp06189.pdf 

Robert O. Keohane, 2002. Power and governance in a partially globalized world. 

http://cneo.net/study/Kohaneinterdependence.PDF 

Robert, W. R. 2003. Technology-based globalization indicators: The Centrality of innovation network 

data. Technology in Society 25 (2003) 299–317. 

Romer, P.M., 1990. Endogenous technical change. Journal of Politic Economy 98, P71-102. 

Şener F., Zhao L. 2009 “Globalization, R&D and the iPod Cycle”. Journal of International Economics 77 

,101–108. 

Sklair, L. 1999. Competing Conceptions of Globalization. Journal of world-systems research, v, 2, summer 

1999, 143-163. 

Swank, D.H. 2001. Mobile capital, democratic institutions, and the public economy in advance industrial 

societies. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 3, 133-162. 

World Bank. 1996. Global Economic Prospects and Developing Countries. Washington. D.C.

(icmef 2012) proceeding developing standardized economic drivers f

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?