Dibujos de Oteiza sobre Elías y su carro de fuego

UNDP (1999) defines globalisation as follows: “Shrinking space, shrinking time and disappearing borders are linking people’s lives more deeply, more intensely, more immediately than ever” (p.2). In other words, the world is becoming increasingly smaller, people are able to connect with one another easily and activities such as

trading between countries can be carried out with very few barriers. Borders between countries are shrinking and disappearing such that connections and relationships can be built without difficulties.

Keohane and Nye (2000) prefer to use the word globalism instead of globalisation. To them, globalisation is about interdependence i.e. the state of affairs or a condition which increases. However, they believe that interdependence can increase and decrease and hence, they prefer the term ‘Globalism’. For them, globalism concerns the “state of the world involving networks of interdependence at multicontinental distances. The linkages occur through flows and influences of capital and goods, information and ideas, and forces, as well as environmentally and biologically relevant substances (such as acid rain or pathogens)” (p. 105). Thus, they concur that globalisation is about the increase of globalism. In short, globalisation suggests an increasing process, while globalism is a description of a particular state.

Fischer (2003) has a similar description as Keohane & Nye (2000) in terms of interdependency between people and their countries. Nevertheless, Fischer

understands globalisation as an on-going process of interdependency among countries and the people and says that it is “complex and multifaceted” (p.2). Velde (2005), however, defines globalisation in relation to three economies which link one country with another i.e. through trading in goods and services, private cross-border

investments and migration.

Ampuja (2015) argues, after presenting many arguments concerning the meaning of globalisation such as those of Rosenberg (2000, 2005) and Scholte (2005), that

globalisation cannot be given a simple definition due to the many complexities and the many facets of globalisation. So, Ampuja presents globalisation in four arguments based on the works of globalisation theorists. The first is that it is a “process of

intensification of worldwide network and flows”. Second, globalisation has a causal significance wherein it “enforces overall social and cultural transformation” (p.22). Third, globalisation itself is a spatiotemporal framework and lastly, this framework is influenced by the new media and communication technologies. In short, Ampuja weaves in neoliberalism theory into her definition of globalisation due to the

hegemonic existence of neoliberalism in globalization itself. Neoliberalism, according to Thorsen and Lie (2006), is “a set of political beliefs which most prominently and prototypically include the conviction that the only legitimate purpose of the state is to safeguard individual, especially commercial, liberty, as well as strong private property rights”. In other words, neoliberalism is ideology that imposes policies and principles that protects and safeguards individuals, commercial, liberty and private properties of an individual or a group.

Obviously, the discussion concerning the definition of globalisation has been on-going but from the many definitions and observations brought forth by theorists and experts as mentioned above, it is clear that globalisation describes the interdependency between and among countries and nations for various purposes such as economic, investments, social and education matters. However, globalization has resulted in competitions between and among countries in various aspects such as economy and education, which, as stated by Ampuja's (2015) whose argument I resonate with, that the meaning of globalization has to be extended to the causal significance that enforces transformation on the society and culture. Ampuja cites Held et al.'s (1999) description of globalization that while globalization is about “interdependence, integration, universalism and convergence” which brings the notion of shared

communities, governance and fortunes, cooperation, interconnectedness and growing homogeneity or harmony, globalisation also “leaves open the possibility of hierarchy

and unevenness” as well as conflict (Held et al., 1999, p. 29). In other words, while globalization comes with a neutral description and the idea that it is inevitable, it is important to understand it has causal effects. Globalisation brings with it outcomes, changes or effects which may be detrimental or positive to a situation or an entity. For example, as Held et al. (1999) have pointed out with Buzan (1991) and Bull’s (1977) arguments that interconnectedness may bring intense conflict instead of cooperation because interconnectedness may not be experienced by all peoples or communities on the same level or to the same extent.

In relation to this research, MOE did not specifically define globalisation and assumes that everyone including the readers of the Blueprint know what globalisation means and what it entails. Instead, MOE has described globalisation as global challenges, economic success and competitiveness. MOE provided a positive description

concerning globalisation and asserts that their decision on aligning the transformation of the education system is the best decision for the country and nation through

imaginaries and assumptions which I discuss later in this thesis. MOE seems to adopt a top-down approach in their policy measures as stated in the Blueprint which is based on neoliberalism as an economic ideology to support its decisions in the

transformation. MOE cited globalization and 21st _{century era is the way forward in}

order for the nation to be competitive globally and thus, to ensure the country’s economic growth and prosperity.