In many ways the answer to questions like this depends on how you define globalisation. Such a task is easier said than done. In this issue of the Journal of Nordregio, we do however try to provide some insight in to these questions. We do so by benefiting from the expertise of Anders Johnson, see pp 8-9, among other things currently an advisor to Globaliserinsgrådet: the Council on Globalisation, appointed by the Swedish government.
Mr. Johnson lists a set of parameters he feels are needed to define globalisation: Technology, Political leadership, Commerce, Trade in Services, Capital Movement and Migration. When, in January, he publically presented his findings, the debate was vey much related to the notion of "winners" and "losers" under globalisation. Both the USA and Sweden were mentioned, but clear answers were not really provided.
Interesting to note also, is the fact that for the majority of the people of the world there is still no freedom to move to "greener pastures". In terms of migratory regulations the current international regime has probably never been as strict as it has recently become. What this will mean in the longer perspective remains unclear. For the Nordic countries it can however be argued, that unless we see rapid changes in respect of integration policy, it may already be too late (pp 18-19).
What if any, is the relationship between regional policies and globalisation? In the Nordic context the first generations of such policies can be described as equalisation while the second generation focussed on growth. The current and third generation of policies can be said to be about deeper integration into the global economy. The argument here is that it is of the utmost importance to realise endogenous regional capacities for innovation and regeneration.
'Innovation', like globalisation, is one of the current 'buzzwords' in our part of the world. Again, similar to globalisation, it is a concept that is constantly being used while attempts to actually definite it continue unsuccessfully. Your editor has participated in numerous conferences on this theme, and to be honest, has often had the feeling that what this is really all about is simply an attempt to rename what have traditionally been referred to as opportunities, developments and inventions in a 'sexier' or novel manner.
In this respect it was very interesting during December 2007 to have the possibility to spend some time in the Finish City of Oulu (see pp 4-5). In particular, it was refreshing to meet some of the inhabitants of the town. They undoubtedly understood that a lot more is needed to create jobs and a living community than the talk of the so-called 'innovations gurus', whether they are from the US or closer to home.
In conclusion, perhaps the most important lesson from Oulu is that they have already passed into the third wave of Nordic regional policies. Moreover, we can tell with some certainty that they are not finding it easy, in particular with regard to attracting global companies and international migration (pp 4-5). Could it be then that the best practice in future will see increasing reliance on local resources - both socio-cultural and economic?
In Journal of Nordregio 2007(2) we presented a story on the North European Gas Pipeline, planned for the Baltic seabed from Vyborg in Russia to Griefswald in Germany. In this issue we are pleased to present the views of ex- diplomat, and now Professor of Politics at Umeå University, Krister Wahlbäck who argues that the gas pipeline ought to follow the existing alignments of Yamal 1 through Belarus and Poland, i.e. on land.
Interestingly enough, it was announced by the Swedish Minister of Environment, Andreas Carlgren, the day after Krister Wahlbäck stated his opinion publically, that the Swedish Government has itself had second thoughts on the route for the pipeline. In particular the Government demands that a thorough study be undertaken on how the pipeline could influence the fragile environment of the Baltic Seabed.
In many ways, it is quite surprising that the Swedish Government has not voiced such concerns more strenuously on previous occasions. In particular, since the debate on the pipeline more than anything concerns Europe's future energy security arrangements and the influence of Russia in this respect.
Odd Iglebaek, Editor