Written by: Mayank Srivastava || Graphics by: Mayank Srivastava|| SEO by: Aarushi Mahajan
Glocalization , the term has become one of the most popular term in today’s market. With its unique and mass attracting approach it has been considered one of the most promising and outgrowing business concept. And in a global market, a product or service which is more likely to succeed when it is customized for the locality or culture in which it is sold. Lets discuss glocalization meaning .
The term glocalization is considered as a linguistic hybrid of Globalization and Localization, made popular by the the sociologist Ronald Robertson. Appearing for the first time in the late 1980s, in articles by Japanese economists in the Harvard Business Review, was coined to explain the Japanese Global Marketing strategies. Robertson who is credited for popularizing the term has elucidated that mitigating effects of local conditions on global pressures. In 1997 while in a conference on “Globalization and Indigenous Culture,” Robertson said that glocalization “means the simultaneity — the co-presence — of both universalizing and particularizing tendencies.”
There are numerous companies that have mastered glocalization. A couple of some promising examples are Starbucks, Pepsico, KFC, McDonald’s, Ford, Gillette, Subway and so many more. As the Glocalization Mantra says : Global template; local adaptations. McDonald’s beef burger elsewhere in the world gives way to a McAloo Tikki vegetarian burger in India. For Ford, it builds higher ground clearance trucks for Indian roads. While KFC makes spicier chicken for the Indian palette, Starbucks makes milkier coffee for the Indian erstwhile chai-drinker. Successful glocalization!
On the other hand, Oreo biscuits when first launched in India “just as it was in the US” failed. Indian consumers found the taste too bitter. An unsuccessful attempt at imposing a global, one-size-fits-all framework.
Robertson completely discards the essentializing polarities between the global and the local, such as between economic globalization and local culture. Traditionally, local identities have been invented and nurtured mainly through contacts with others. They have been stimulated and shaped primarily by trans-local interaction, comparison, and trends. There are two typical reactions and results of this interplay of global and local forces; both encourage diversity. The opportunistic reaction is the creation of hybrids. Especially in world cities where immigrants and elites must adjust to each other and maintain ties abroad, mixed cultures and identities arise. The rebellious reaction is to foster a resistance identity defending local history, traditions, and authentic cultures.
The local is fundamentally shaped by the global, but the opposite is also true. The opening of national boundaries to trade and investment only increased the economic importance of location. Similarly, the expanding information economy did not disperse production and consumption across geographic space. The resulting economic environment is instead characterized by the clustering of companies in specific city-regions and by geographic concentration. Examples are the financial districts of London and New York and the Silicon Valley computer industry. Thus, globalization increases territorial differentiation in both cultural and economic terms. Local milieus play an important role in a networked economy and society by providing content and contextual support for innovations. Furthermore, there is leeway for local agency; there are many divergent scales and flows linking places and people. Certainly, the economy is at the forefront of glocalizing processes, but beyond the dynamics of capital accumulation there are further motives. Culture and environment, for example, provide other focal points and perspectives for glocalized networking and innovation.
Glocalizing processes can also be understood in a three-level system containing sub-national (or local), national, and supranational (or global) levels. The modern political system has been fundamentally shaped by the norm of national sovereignty. National executives occupy a gate keeper position between the international and the domestic political spheres because they are the only legitimate actors in both spheres. In this context, glocalization points to increasing transnational interactions among sub-national entities from different countries and to contacts among sub-national and supranational entities—both generally circumventing the national level and undermining the gatekeeper position of national executives.
That sub-national political entities such as states, provinces, and cities are being involved in international activities can be said as a reaction to the socio-economic processes of glocalization. City regions that serve as nodal points for the information and network economy are becoming disembedded from the national context because their fates depend more on their international contacts than on their national ones. Diverging interests and autonomous activities in the international field are the consequences.
There is another line of argument for explaining the stronger involvement of sub-national political entities in international activities. The starting point of this line of reasoning is the assumption that transnational socioeconomic integration has strengthened the roles of national executives. To regulate socioeconomic interactions on a larger scale, national executives have successfully acquired more competencies and have managed to reduce the restrictions and controls they usually face in purely domestic political processes. From this viewpoint, the transnational activities of sub-national actors are strategies to either defend autonomy and competences or to compensate for the loss of regulatory leeway using non regulatory means of governance.