The term globalization has been used to mean a thousand different phenomena, some concurrent, some even connected, but it is a very amorphous term. I will specifically address the merits of what I call liberal globalization, a liberal world economy or global economic integration. Essentially, it is the integration of economic activity across national borders through a market system. David Henderson of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development defines it as "free movement of goods, services, labor, and capital, thereby creating a single market in inputs and outputs; and full national treatment for foreign investors so that, economically speaking, there are no foreigners."

To more clearly see the interrelated causes and effects involved, we may consider Brink Lindsey's definition of globalization as the combination of three factors: "the economic phenomenon of increasing integration of markets across political boundaries," "the strictly political phenomenon of falling government imposed barriers to international flows of goods, services, and capital" and "the much broader political phenomenon of the global spread of market oriented policies in both the domestic and international spheres." Ultimately, what is important to remember is that as transportation costs fall, the world is effectively becoming smaller and to the extent government policy allows it, economic actors will have increasing effect and be increasingly affected by other actors around the world.

I also think it is necessary to address what globalization is not. First, it is in no way the death of the state. While globalization has largely been driven by falling transport costs, distances will always matter. It is impossible to imagine the transport of a multi-ton tractor from China to Canada being both instantaneous and costless. To the extent that distances matter, territory matters. Because territory matters, ultimately the state will continue to matter. Moreover, it has been state actions, specifically the removal of trade barriers and fostering of a market system, which have helped to drive liberal globalization to its current extent. The state is not only compatible with globalization, but it is pivotal in creating the stable environment which fosters liberal globalization.

Finally, to support liberal globalization is not necessarily to support any of the specific institutions designed to oversee or further liberal globalization: the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank or the World Trade Organization. These institutions can certainly be flawed and must be judged on their merits and demerits. Moreover, to support liberal globalization is not to specifically support any single corporation or institution. Proponents of liberal globalization do not dream of a "McWorld," and do not feel the job is done when Coca-Cola, Hollywood movies or any of a number of Western cultural exports has reached every corner of the globe.

Perhaps the key to understanding liberal globalization is to truly understand liberality. While the term has been perverted and bent to characterize any left-leaning policy, it is certainly more meaningful and more appropriately applied in its original use. Essentially, John Stewart Mill correctly characterized liberalism in his book On Liberty, where he enumerated the importance of economic, personal and civic freedoms. In its pure form, liberal globalization is only the extension of these freedoms to a global scale: the freedom to purchase foreign goods as well as domestic goods, the freedom to immigrate and work wherever you choose, the freedom to sell the products of your labor to the highest bidder, whether they are your countrymen or not and the freedom to invest abroad as well as domestically. To the proponent of liberal globalization, these very freedoms are pivotal in the improvement of global welfare.