Globalisation is not new. One hundred years ago the British Empire had managed to dominate, and thereby integrate, the most important commercial centres of the world through control of the sea routes.
The other powers could do little else but live in détente. Back then, the United States was consolidating and, in any case, it never had imperial ambitions - indeed it was born fighting imperialism, and forays outside its borders were very nearly always with a view to better securing the homeland.
The broken shell of the old globalisation were buried in the debris of two great world wars and we are now, once again living in a new globalised order.
Globalisation is as polymerous as human society. Broadly perhaps one can say that it deals with the integration of nations' systems: people, money, technology, culture, politics, environment. Economic globalisation is an important aspect of it and, according to an IMF paper, "refers to the increasing integration of economies around the world, particularly through trade and financial flows."
Globalisation has harsh critics and vociferous champions. There are idealists on both sides.
How can one deny globalisation's benefits? Computers are distributed across the world and common standards make it possible for them to communicate. The internet is the product of globalisation. Medicines travel the world and surgery can be performed by remote control.
In order for a nation to be recognised, it has to adopt - and adapt to - international standards. Doing so plugs it to the greatest source of wealth the world has ever seen.
The new reality is that software designed in India makes US equipment work in Europe. European design finds itself in China, which is giving value to billions of consumers around the world by unleashing an industrial leviathan.
Yet, the masses of protesters hemming in nearly every major international conference are a clear indication that something is amiss. The IMF brief quotes a World Economic Outlook study which was carried out in 42 countries, representing nearly 90 per cent of the world's population. The conclusion was that while income per capita has risen appreciably, the distribution of that income is even more unequal than it was at the beginning of the century.
The brief points out that income per capital may not capture all welfare and that if other social indicators are examined, then the situation would improve.
Still, the divide is there for all to see. Globalisation is a great irrigator but the desertification of those countries which fail to keep up is there for all to see. The costs which globalisation imposes on countries at the margin is sometimes higher than the benefits it brings.
Witness the considerable number of Caribbean island states which have been subject to such pressures, the most recent being the effort to stamp out "unfair" tax competition (tax havens) and this coming after their agricultural capabilities were bought off or rendered unfeasible.
Globalisation gets its dynamism and strength from being motored by markets and openness, both of which tend to grow wildly in response to private interests. But in order to ensure its own survival and to protect the great benefits which it gave the world, globalisation must be managed. It has to be managed with a firm hand now before it is too late, before the protesters multiply and bring it to a halt through protectionism and isolation.
Laissez-faire globalisation should evolve into managed, ethical globalisation. This is also the way capitalism developed. It would not have survived otherwise - not if it remained in the ages of the robber barons. Marx or martyrs would have seen to its demise.
Globalisation involves leveraging. Activities and decisions are no longer on a small scale, affecting only a few thousands or a few millions. Decisions - whether good or bad - by key persons and organisations often affect whole continents.
There are many aspects of managing globalisation and I would like to look at some major ones here.
First, the agents of globalisation should not identify globalisation exclusively with bigness. Leaders should make space for the small - small nations, small firms and individuals with few resources. This would both expand the base for economic development and avert feelings of helplessness. Legislation, rules and regulations should take into consideration the small and the less complex. Regulations should not be designed for the big and used to smother the small.
In last week's The Economist, for instance, there was a very interesting example of US regulators standing up for US smaller banks . The article dealt with "Basel 2", a second and even more complex set of rules for bank capital developed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, chaired by Bill McDonough, who also heads the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
When it came to apply these more complex set of rules to their banks, American regulators made it clear before Congress that they would only apply it to the big "internationally active" banks since they thought that the change would be a waste of money to the smaller banks.
Compare this informed attitude to the way smaller countries usually gobble up without evaluation or representation whatever is presented to them by way of international regulation, even if it means that certain inappropriate regulations neutralise important competitive advantages from which even big institutions benefit, for example, via subcontracting. It is the leaders of the small who must have the courage to make their case.
Second, and this has often been said, any resulting negative effects of globalisation should be mitigated via transfers which help develop the economies of countries which are adversely affected.
Third, I think that globalisation needs to be managed also in the sense that often the onus to integrate and to adapt and adopt to globalisation (and thus the promised goodies) is placed on developing countries. Globalisation agents should always keep in mind how they should incentivise developing countries to open up to globalisation.
Fourth, globalisation needs to recognise human diversity. Today, the premises behind globalisation seem to be the integration of races and societies. A better model would perhaps be diversity, educating people in living in a diverse society with different races and cultures co-living in mutual respect. Integration is the ultimate objective and will evolve out of diversity, to strengthen the human race immeasurably, but it will take time.
Even staunch believers in integration now have second thoughts. The Weekend FT last week carried an article by Patti Waldmeir, who initially set out as a strong believer in race-blindness (integration), who now states: "The lesson of my half-century is that race is an impossible question... If integration is an impossible dream, then let there be diversity. They are not the same thing - surely, they are not - but they are better than segregation."
Globalisation must be sensitive to these issues and mold itself around such important social realities. It is no use launching marketing campaigns which are insensitive to social mores.
Lastly, managing globalisation implies a manager. To a large extent, the managers of globalisation are the leaders of our society, be they political, religious, business, or cultural leaders. To a lesser extent, in a democracy, we are all leaders and managers and have to stand for what we believe is the best way to attain the optimal common good.
Leaders get the respect they deserve and all leaders have to earn respect. Globalisation is the great stallion of wealth creation but it must be led by firm reins and vision.