OBSERVARE

Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17, Nº. 1

May 2026

DYNAMIC RELATIONSHIPS AMONG DIMENSIONS OF GLOBALIZATION:

ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS ON COUNTRY INCOME GROUPS

CAN SAGLAM

can.saglam@giresun.edu.tr

Assistant Professor in the Department of Public Finance at Giresun University (Türkiye). He

obtained his MA and PhD degrees from the Department of Econometrics at Karadeniz Technical

University. His research interests include globalization, economic integration, economic growth,

and income distribution. http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0688-4698

RAHMİ YAMAK

yamak@ktu.edu.tr

Professor in the Department of Econometrics at Karadeniz Technical University (Türkiye). He

received an MA and a PhD degree from the Department of Economics at Texas Tech University.

His primary research interests are monetary policy, fiscal policy, public finance, inflation,

economic growth, income distribution, and time-series analysis.

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2604-1797

Abstract

Globalization is a multidimensional phenomenon that includes economic, political, and cultural

dimensions. The globalization process is shaped by the intertwined interactions of its

dimensions. In this context, the main purpose of this study is to analyze the long–run

relationships among economic, cultural, and political globalization according to country

income groups worldwide and to investigate how they interact with each other. The study

covers the period 1980–2020. Long–run relationships among the dimensions of globalization

were analyzed with Johansen cointegration test. Long–run coefficients were estimated using

FMOLS method. According to the findings obtained from the study, long–run relationships

were determined among the dimensions of globalization. It was observed that the direction

and degree of the relationships among the dimensions of globalization may differ depending

on the income levels of countries. In all income groups, it was determined that political

globalization and both economic and cultural globalization positive affect each other. It was

determined that the interactions between economic and cultural globalization differed

significantly according to country income groups. In general, the findings indicate that political

integration promotes globalization processes, while economic and cultural integration

processes support political integration.

Keywords

Globalization, Dimensions of Globalization, Integration, Income Groups, Cointegration

Analysis.

Resumo

A globalização é um fenómeno multidimensional que inclui as dimensões económica, política

e cultural. O processo de globalização é moldado pelas interações interligadas entre estas

dimensões. Neste contexto, o principal objetivo deste estudo é analisar as relações de longo

prazo entre a globalização económica, cultural e política, de acordo com os grupos de

rendimento dos países a nível mundial, e investigar como estas interagem entre si. O estudo

abrange o período de 1980 a 2020. As relações de longo prazo entre as dimensões da

globalização foram analisadas com o teste de cointegração de Johansen. Os coeficientes de

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17, Nº. 1

May 2026, pp. 77-99

Dynamıc Relatıonshıps Among Dımensıons of Globalızatıon:Econometrıc Analysıs

on Country Income Groups

Can Saglam, Rahmi Yamak

longo prazo foram estimados utilizando o método FMOLS. De acordo com os resultados

obtidos no estudo, foram determinadas relações de longo prazo entre as dimensões da

globalização. Observou-se que a direção e o grau das relações entre as dimensões da

globalização podem diferir dependendo dos níveis de rendimento dos países. Em todos os

grupos de rendimento, verificou-se que a globalização política e tanto a globalização

económica como a cultural se influenciam mutuamente de forma positiva. Verificou-se que as

interações entre a globalização económica e a cultural diferiam significativamente de acordo

com os grupos de rendimento dos países. Em geral, os resultados indicam que a integração

política promove os processos de globalização, enquanto os processos de integração

económica e cultural apoiam a integração política.

Palavras-chave

Globalização, Dimensões da Globalização, Integração, Grupos de Rendimento, Análise de

Cointegração.

How to cite this article

Saglam, Can & Yamak, Rahmi (2026). Dynamıc Relatıonshıps Among Dımensıons of Globalızatıon:

Econometrıc Analysıs on Country Income Groups. Janus.net, e-journal of international relations,

VOL. 17, Nº. 1, May 2026, pp. 77-99. https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.17.1.5

Article submitted on 6 October 2025 and accepted on 28 February 2026.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17, Nº. 1

May 2026, pp. 77-99

Dynamıc Relatıonshıps Among Dımensıons of Globalızatıon:Econometrıc Analysıs

on Country Income Groups

Can Saglam, Rahmi Yamak

DYNAMIC RELATIONSHIPS AMONG DIMENSIONS OF

GLOBALIZATION: ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS ON COUNTRY

INCOME GROUPS

CAN SAGLAM

RAHMİ YAMAK

Introduction

The phenomenon of globalization has been increasingly felt worldwide since the second

half of the 20th century, and became the focus of academic and social debate in the

1980s. Since then, the concept of globalization has been the subject of extensive debate

within academia and public opinion, and many studies have been carried out on the

subject. The main reason for profound interest in the concept of globalization is its

complexity, encompassing numerous cultural, social, political, and technological

processes, rather than being solely an economic phenomenon. Globalization, with its

multidimensional structure, can directly and/or indirectly affect almost every area of

social life such as economy, cultural structure, politics, law, and health. It is widely

discussed how these effects, which can also be called the results of globalization, emerge

in different areas and whether they are positive or negative. Because it causes such

wide–ranging effects, the phenomenon of globalization has been and continues to be the

focus of many researchers from different disciplines.

The globalization process constantly involves change and transformation. Therefore, it

should not be overlooked that the effects of globalization may change over time.

Furthermore, the globalization process is not uniform but can differ according to different

regions of the world and income levels of countries. This is also true for the processes

related to the dimensions of globalization. In addition to all these, some dimensions of

globalization may become much more important in terms of the globalization process

over time. Therefore, the globalization process and the processes related to the

dimensions may exhibit variations in different periods, geographies, and societies. All

these require the concept of globalization to be evaluated continuously.

Following the global financial crisis, globalization slowed considerably, and in some areas,

it reversed. The slowdown in globalization, fueled by populist and protectionist forces

This study is extracted from the PhD dissertation titled “The Dynamic Relationships between Economic,

Cultural, and Political Globalization: Econometric Analysis” prepared by Can SAGLAM and supervised by Prof.

Rahmi YAMAK at Karadeniz Technical University.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17, Nº. 1

May 2026, pp. 77-99

Dynamıc Relatıonshıps Among Dımensıons of Globalızatıon:Econometrıc Analysıs

on Country Income Groups

Can Saglam, Rahmi Yamak

following the global financial crisis (Moffit, 2016; Steger, 2019), combined with the

COVID–19 pandemic, has begun to pose a very serious threat to the globalization process

(Irwin, 2020; McNamara & Newman, 2020; Steger, 2021). In the literature, these crises

and their consequences related to the globalization process are evaluated from different

perspectives. Some academics argue that deglobalization, also supported by the geo–

economic rivalry between the US and China, signals a new historical conjuncture

(Bergeijk, 2019; Irwin, 2020).

Another perspective on the current process of globalization is that these crises do not

represent the end of globalization. The current situation represents a cyclical contraction.

Although it may not be like the period before the global financial crisis, it is thought that

the globalization process may enter a new golden age (Lund et al., 2019; James, 2021).

Furthermore, it is argued that due to the increasing intensity and impact of digital

globalization, the end of globalization is far from over (Steger & James, 2020). It is

thought that the geo–economic and geopolitical rivalry between the US and China has

created a bipolar world system (Acharya, 2017; Maher, 2018; Goldstein, 2020). It is

stated that the bipolar world system has bifurcated globalization (Zhang, 2018; Xuetong,

2020; Owen, 2021; Zhao, 2022). Therefore, significant transformations have been

occurring in the form of globalization itself in recent years, and these transformations

should not be ignored when evaluating the globalization process (McNamara & Newman,

2020; Steger & James, 2020).

In the related literature, there is no consensus on issues such as the definition and

conceptualization of globalization, approaches to globalization, the effects of

globalization, and globalization theories. However, most of the studies on the concept

concur with similar perspectives on issues such as the multidimensional nature of

globalization, its pervasive impact on diverse domains of social life, and the

interconnectedness of its various dimensions (Ritzer, 2007; Robinson, 2007).

Multidimensional and complex conceptualizations that consider globalization as a

phenomenon that operates simultaneously and interrelatedly in economic, cultural, and

political areas are widely accepted (Robertson, 1992; Appadurai, 1996; Tomlinson, 1999;

Modelski, 2007). It is argued that the boundaries among the dimensions of globalization

are not immutable; on the contrary, these dimensions are interconnected and

interrelated (Dreher & Gaston, 2008). Therefore, it is thought that the dimensions of

globalization consist of intertwined processes. The multidimensional and pluralistic

approach to the concept enables the perception of globalization as a holistic and

comprehensive process in which many dimensions emerge simultaneously and in

interaction with different processes (Rennen & Martens, 2003). In the literature, single–

cause explanations of globalization that are reduced to capitalism or market expansion

are widely criticized. In this context, many studies emphasize that globalization emerges

as a result of the complex relationships between many reasons or driving forces that

encompass all dimensions and that provide more comprehensive explanations of

globalization. It is thought that considering globalization as a multidimensional process

that occurs with many dimensions is more effective in evaluating the form, dynamics,

effects, and results of globalization (Appadurai, 1990; 1996; Giddens, 1990; Held, 1995;

Rosenau, 1997; Held et al., 1999; Steger, 2003; Scholte, 2005; Ritzer, 2010).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17, Nº. 1

May 2026, pp. 77-99

Dynamıc Relatıonshıps Among Dımensıons of Globalızatıon:Econometrıc Analysıs

on Country Income Groups

Can Saglam, Rahmi Yamak

Globalization is not only evaluated with its economic, cultural, or political dimensions,

but it refers to a process that includes all of these dimensions. Globalization is shaped by

the mutual interactions of these dimensions. In addition to all these, it is also noteworthy

that globalization is discussed a lot with general concepts. However, such discussions do

not make the multidimensional phenomenon of globalization understandable (Hoffman,

2002). For this reason, it is emphasized that the dimensions of globalization should be

defined and the relationships among these dimensions should be revealed (Hoffman,

2002; Ritzer, 2010). When the related literature is examined, although there are

theoretical discussions and inferences on this subject, no empirical study has been found

on the relationships among the dimensions of globalization, and if there is, it is thought

that the empirical literature on this subject is quite limited. Therefore, this study aims to

contribute to filling this gap in the literature.

The study aims to analyze the long–run relationships among economic, cultural, and

political globalization according to country income groups worldwide and to investigate

how the dimensions of globalization interact. In the study, firstly, the conceptual

framework regarding the phenomenon of globalization is presented, then the dimensions

of globalization are explained, and the views on the interactions among these dimensions

are given. Subsequently, the data set and econometric methodology are introduced, and

the findings obtained from the econometric analyses are reported. In the conclusion

section, the findings regarding the relationships among the dimensions of globalization

are evaluated.

Globalization: Conceptual Framework

Globalization is a very complex concept due to its many different definitions. In general,

the concept of globalization refers to the increasing interaction and interdependence of

people, companies, governments, and cultures around the world. The extent of this

interaction and interdependence began to increase in many areas, especially trade,

finance, technology, communication, culture, and politics, after the 1980s and has

reached critical levels today. However, there are different views on what the concept of

globalization means and how it is defined. Different views on the concept make it difficult

for researchers to come up with a single definition of globalization.

Researchers from different disciplines have defined globalization, and these definitions

include significant characteristics of the concept. Determining the common points of

globalization definitions provides a better understanding of the concept. In some

definitions, globalization is considered as the spread of Western values, institutions, and

practices (Scholte, 2005), while in others, it is considered as the universalization of

modernity. Most definitions of globalization emphasize time–space compression (Harvey,

1989; Giddens, 1990; Robertson, 1992). Furthermore, the multidimensional nature of

the globalization is frequently expressed in definitions (Appadurai, 1990; 1996;

Robertson, 1992; Held, 1995; Abu–Lughod, 1999; Tomlinson, 1999; Steger, 2003;

Modelski, 2007; McGrew, 2008; Howard–Hassman, 2010; Ritzer, 2010).

Other common points of globalization definitions can be expressed as follows. The

definitions draw attention to the fact that globalization brings about a process of change

and transformation worldwide and in almost every area of social life. As a result of this

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17, Nº. 1

May 2026, pp. 77-99

Dynamıc Relatıonshıps Among Dımensıons of Globalızatıon:Econometrıc Analysıs

on Country Income Groups

Can Saglam, Rahmi Yamak

change and transformation, it is emphasized that the world has become a single place

(McLuhan, 1962; Meyer, 1980; Ritzer, 2010). In the definitions of globalization, the

integration of communities, governments, and people around the world is emphasized

(Abu–Lughod, 1999; Stiglitz, 2002; Steger, 2003). In this direction, the concepts of

interrelationship and complex interdependence are included in the definitions (Modelski,

1968; Wallerstein, 1974; Giddens, 1990; Abu–Lughod, 1999; Steger, 2003; Scholte,

2005; McGrew, 2008). In the emergence of these interrelationships and dependence,

networks are emphasized (Meyer, 1980; Held et al., 1999; Ritzer, 2010). In definitions

of globalization, the concept of flow, which refers to the cross–border and worldwide

mobility of capital, goods, information, and people through existing networks, is

frequently included (Held, 1995; Appadurai, 1996; Held et al., 1999; Stiglitz, 2002;

Ritzer, 2010). Most definitions emphasize technological advances that facilitate faster,

more efficient, and less costly economic, political, and sociocultural flows to remote

locations around the world (Harvey, 1989; Stiglitz, 2002).

Globalization has been also defined based on a specific dimension such as economic

(Wallerstein, 1974; Harvey, 1989; Friedman, 1999; Stiglitz, 2002; Bhagwati, 2004),

political (Meyer, 1980; Held et al., 1999; Howard–Hassman, 2010), and socio–cultural

(Appadurai, 1990; Robertson, 1992; Tomlinson, 1999; Ritzer, 2007). Definitions based

on the economic perspective draw attention to capitalist system, international division of

labor, transnational production, and financial system. Definitions of globalization from an

economic perspective focus on the expansion of capitalism as the fundamental driving

force of globalization processes. Definitions based on the political dimension of

globalization generally focus on global governance and the international institutions,

actors, and global practices that increase the tendency toward global governance. In

definitions centered on political processes, attention is drawn to the creation of world

society awareness in order to implement and increase global governance practices. In

the socio–cultural definitions of globalization, the ideas of societies having a global

consciousness together and the world society are included.

The Dimensions of Globalization and the Relationships among

Dimensions of Globalization

The Dimensions of Globalization

The concept of globalization includes three main dimensions: economic, cultural, and

political (Ritzer, 2010; Heywood, 2011). When the globalization process is considered

together with its dimensions, it is seen that these dimensions interact with each other

and that these dimensions have an intertwined structure. In this context, it would be

both wrong and misleading to evaluate the phenomenon of globalization only as an

economic, cultural, or political development and analyze the process. If the globalization

process is discussed by ignoring its various dimensions, the complex interrelationships

of this process that shapes societies and the world will be overlooked (Giddens, 1990;

Friedman, 1999; Held et al., 1999). In many studies, it is stated that the globalization

process emerges as a result of the relationships among all its dimensions. However, it

should not be forgotten that the dimensions of globalization include different processes

and components. Therefore, economic, cultural, or political globalization processes do

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17, Nº. 1

May 2026, pp. 77-99

Dynamıc Relatıonshıps Among Dımensıons of Globalızatıon:Econometrıc Analysıs

on Country Income Groups

Can Saglam, Rahmi Yamak

not work in the same way. Undoubtedly, when expressing the phenomenon of

globalization, it should not be ignored that the processes related to the dimensions of

globalization interact with each other and that the globalization process emerges as a

result of these relationships (Appadurai, 1990; 1996; Giddens, 1990; Held, 1995;

Ohmae, 1995; Castells, 1996; Held & McGrew, 2000; Steger, 2003; Scholte, 2005;

Robinson; 2007; Ritzer, 2010).

The globalization process consists of various processes, institutions, and actors.

Economic globalization includes trade and financial globalization, transnational

corporations (TNCs), and global economic governance institutions. Cultural globalization

is shaped by the change in consumer behaviors and ideologies, the cultural convergence

of societies, and media organizations. Political globalization encompasses the erosion of

nation–states, the emergence of global governance, intergovernmental organizations

(IGOs), and non–governmental organizations (NGOs). Each of these can directly and

indirectly affect the other. Therefore, globalization refers to comprehensive and holistic

process.

Although globalization is related to all areas of social life, it is thought to be more closely

related to economic processes. Some globalization theorists focus directly on economic

globalization when conceptualizing globalization and argue that economic globalization is

the fundamental dynamic of the globalization process (Ritzer, 2010). Economic

globalization is a concept related to the increase in foreign direct investments as well as

foreign trade and the complex connections of financial transactions. The economic

dimension of globalization is shaped by many phenomena such as economic integration,

global economy, foreign direct investment, foreign trade, international capital, and free

trade (Steger, 2003; Ritzer, 2010; Heywood, 2011). With economic globalization, global

economic interrelations are intensifying (Steger, 2003) and national economies are being

drawn into a single global economy (Heywood, 2011).

The political dimension is very important in terms of the globalization process. It is

necessary not to reduce the phenomenon of globalization to just economic globalization

or technological developments (Ritzer, 2010). The political dimension maintains its

importance in the globalization process, as governments have regulatory and/or

restrictive effects in many areas. The political globalization process includes critical

political issues such as the increasing effectiveness of IGOs and NGOs and the global

governance mechanism. These issues related to the political globalization process are

associated with the replacement of the nation–state by a new form of global governance

(Keohane, 1995; Steger, 2003). In this context, with the political globalization process,

political relations around the world are intensifying and expanding (Steger, 2003), and

the responsibility for policymaking is passing from national governments to international

organizations (Heywood, 2011).

The cultural dimension of globalization is as important as its other dimensions. When

globalization is evaluated from a historical perspective, it is thought that cultural and

social processes date back to ancient times. It is noteworthy that the cultural dimension

makes significant contributions to the globalization process. In the literature, it is thought

that both cultural globalization shapes the globalization process and the globalization

process shapes cultural practices (Appadurai, 1996; Tomlinson, 1999). The social and

cultural transformations that started especially in the 1950s gradually accelerated after

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17, Nº. 1

May 2026, pp. 77-99

Dynamıc Relatıonshıps Among Dımensıons of Globalızatıon:Econometrıc Analysıs

on Country Income Groups

Can Saglam, Rahmi Yamak

the late 1960s. In this process of change and transformation, Marshall McLuhan’s (1962)

expression of the existence of globalization with the “global village” metaphor actually

constitutes an important turning point. Cultural globalization refers to the global flows of

information, goods, and images produced anywhere in the world, which tend to eliminate

cultural differences that exist both internationally and interpersonally (Heywood, 2011).

Among the theories of globalization, there are theories that directly address the cultural

dimension of globalization. These theories, also referred to as theories of global culture,

focus on globalizing cultural structures and flows. Cultural theories of globalization

discuss such issues as the globalization of religions, communication and information, and

the relationship between globalization and consumption, migration, and tourism

(Robinson, 2007). Theories of global culture are addressed from different perspectives

such as homogenization (Ritzer, 2010), heterogenization (Friedman, 1995), hybridization

(Pieterse, 1995; Hannerz, 1996), and glocalization (Robertson, 1992). The debate on

cultural homogenization and heterogenization is shaped around the question, “Does

globalization make people and societies similar or different from each other?”.

The Relationships among Dimensions of Globalization

It is necessary to express how the dimensions of globalization affect each other. The

disappearance of borders and the formation of a more flexible structure with the

globalization process benefit capital and accelerate economic globalization. If the basis

of globalization is the removal of trade barriers and the integration of national economies

(Stiglitz, 2002; Bhagwati, 2004), the economic globalization process cannot be

considered independently of other dimensions of globalization. In this context, it is stated

that other integration processes support economic globalization.

The rise of the global economy threatens sovereignty of nation–states. However,

economic integration occurs as a result of nation–states increasing their political

integration by becoming involved in global governance networks within the scope of their

policies (Ohmae, 1995; Friedman, 1999). While economic globalization is realized

through the integration of national economies, this process needs to be supported by

political regulations (Rodrik, 2011). Economic integration processes are supported by

political integration through international organizations, agreements and norms

(Keohane & Nye, 2000). In addition, economic integration creates strategic partnerships

in the world economy and paves the way for the political integration process. Therefore,

it is stated that economic and political processes are in a complex and intertwined

relationship with globalization (Held, 1999; Held & McGrew, 2000).

Economic globalization can significantly affect government policies and cause

governments to be included in the global governance mechanism. This situation is also

reflected in the discourses of political leaders. It is seen that governments use

globalization discourses to integrate into the global economy and governance (Held &

McGrew, 2000). At this point, it is noteworthy that developing countries want to ensure

capital flow to their countries by supporting neoliberal policies and aim for a better

position for themselves in global governance institutions. Thus, it is thought that they

are trying to integrate into the global economy by increasing their level of political

globalization. Developed countries can implement this strategy to maintain their positions

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17, Nº. 1

May 2026, pp. 77-99

Dynamıc Relatıonshıps Among Dımensıons of Globalızatıon:Econometrıc Analysıs

on Country Income Groups

Can Saglam, Rahmi Yamak

in the global economy and governance. Therefore, countries are increasing their political

integration to benefit from the positive effects of economic globalization (Rosenau,

1997). In addition, with the globalization process, developing countries aim to position

themselves in the global economy better. In this direction, the balance of power may

change (Amin, 2006). Developing countries can be effective in the global economy by

increasing their level of economic integration. By supporting this with political integration,

they increase their power in global governance and try to strengthen their hierarchical

position in the global economy (Wallerstein, 1974; Ritzer, 2010).

As a result of the increase in economic integration, processes related to the global

economy cannot be determined by nation–states alone. Global governance structures

have a critical role in the sustainability of economic activities (Held & McGrew, 2002;

Steger, 2003). Institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World

Bank (WB), and the World Trade Organization (WTO) have become important actors in

the governance of the global economy. These institutions have an intergovernmental

nature. Therefore, these institutions are formed by the coming together of nation–states.

International economic organizations support global economic integration through

political arrangements. These organizations pave the way for political globalization by

creating cooperation in the world economy. Nation–states are at the center of these and

similar organizations, unions, and agreements. Becoming a member of such institutions,

joining unions, and being a party to agreements causes the globalization processes to

become intertwined (Ruggie, 1998; Steger, 2003; Ritzer, 2010; Heywood, 2011).

With economic globalization, consumer ideology is spreading globally. This situation

causes changes and transformations in the traditional cultural structures and lifestyles of

societies (Sklair, 2000). As a result of the global spread of brands such as McDonald’s

and Starbucks, the eating and drinking habits of societies are affected. This effect can

cause the acceleration of cultural integration, standardization, and cultural

homogenization (Pieterse, 1995; Ritzer, 2010). In addition, with commercial

globalization, the consumption cultures of societies are changing due to international

trade in cultural products and services (Sklair, 2000). In this regard, TNCs trigger various

social and cultural transformations in the countries where they operate, thus affecting

cultural integration.

The spread of universal values such as human rights, freedom, and democracy on a

global scale shapes international political arrangements and global governance and leads

to increased political integration (Held, 1995; Held & McGrew, 2002). Therefore, cultural

globalization can shape political structures by supporting the spread of international

norms and values (Robertson, 1992; Ruggie, 1998). Political integration also has

significant impacts on cultural processes. Political globalization both increases the spread

of TNCs and leads to the adoption of global values and norms through NGOs. Finally,

nation–states become determinants of cultural processes as well as economic processes

by increasing their political integration through their participation in international

organizations and their cooperation (Keohane & Nye, 2000).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17, Nº. 1

May 2026, pp. 77-99

Dynamıc Relatıonshıps Among Dımensıons of Globalızatıon:Econometrıc Analysıs

on Country Income Groups

Can Saglam, Rahmi Yamak

Data and Econometric Process

Data

The aim of the study is to empirically analyze the long–run relationships among

economic, cultural, and political globalization. In the literature, many indicators and

indices are suggested regarding globalization and its dimensions. Among the

globalization indices, the KOF Globalization Index is measured to cover 203 countries and

the period 1970–2020. In addition, 43 variables are used in measuring the KOF

Globalization Index and it takes more variables into consideration than other globalization

indices. The KOF Globalization Index measures the dimensions of globalization used in

the econometric analysis of the study. Additionally, the KOF Globalization Index

measures globalization by grouping countries according to income levels. For these

reasons, the KOF Globalization Index has become the most widely used globalization

index in the literature (Potrafke, 2015; Gygli et al., 2019). The globalization index

variables used in the analysis of the study were obtained from the KOF Swiss Economics

Institute.

The data used in the study are annual and cover the period of 1980–2020. The main

reason why the study period began in 1980 is that there is a consensus in the literature

that contemporary globalization fully emerged after this period. In the study, the

relationships among the dimensions of globalization are analyzed separately according

to the income group classifications of countries worldwide. The country income groups

considered in the study are high income, upper–middle income, lower–middle income,

and low income. All of the variables were used in logarithmic form. Abbreviations and

definitions of all variables are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Abbreviations and Definitions of Variables

Variable Abbreviation

Variable Definition

LECO

Logarithm of Economic Globalization Index

LCUL

Logarithm of Cultural Globalization Index

LPOL

Logarithm of Political Globalization Index

Note: The initial letter “L” in the variable abbreviations indicates that the logarithm of the relevant

series is taken.

Econometric Methodolgy and Models

The econometric methodology used in this study is as follows: First of all, the Augmented

Dickey–Fuller (ADF) unit root test developed by Dickey & Fuller (1981) and the Phillips–

Perron (PP) unit root test developed by Phillips & Perron (1988) were applied to all three

variables. After that, long–run relationships among variables were investigated with

cointegration methods. The Johansen cointegration test (Johansen, 1988; Johansen &

Juselius, 1990) was used. Subsequently, long–run elasticity coefficients were obtained

to determine the direction and degree of long–run relationships among the dimensions

of globalization. If the series are stationary in their first differences and there is a long–

run relationship among the series, the coefficients as a result of the estimates made with

the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) method can be biased and inconsistent. In this case,

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17, Nº. 1

May 2026, pp. 77-99

Dynamıc Relatıonshıps Among Dımensıons of Globalızatıon:Econometrıc Analysıs

on Country Income Groups

Can Saglam, Rahmi Yamak

hypothesis tests lose their validity, endogeneity problems arise, and estimates are not

efficient. Fully Modified Ordinary Least Squares (FMOLS) method developed by Phillips &

Hansen (1990), correct possible asymptotic bias and endogeneity problems that may

arise in OLS estimates and ensure that efficient estimators are obtained. Moreover, these

model provides more reliable results in small samples. In this study, long–run elasticity

coefficients were estimated using FMOLS method.

The econometric process was applied

to each country income group in line with the purpose and main arguments of the study.

There are three different econometric models in the study. In these models, each

dimension of globalization is considered separately as a dependent variable and the other

two dimensions as explanatory variables. Econometric models are expressed below.

Model 1: LECO = f (LCUL, LPOL)

Model 2: LCUL = f (LECO, LPOL)

Model 3: LPOL = f (LECO, LCUL)

Empirical Findings

Graphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 show the time course of economic, cultural, and political

globalization indices for country income groups from 1980 to 2020. Non–logarithmic raw

data were used in the graphs. Graph 1 shows the index values for high income countries.

The graph shows that cultural globalization had the highest index values, while political

globalization had the lowest index values during the period. The economic globalization

index showed an increasing trend. Although the cultural globalization index increased

between 1980 and 2000, it decreased in 2001 and 2002. In high income countries, the

political globalization index declined in most periods between 1980 and 1990 and

experienced a break in 1990.

In the following period, political globalization increased rapidly. Index values for upper–

middle income countries are presented in Graph 2. In this graph, it is seen that the

globalization indices had close values from 1980 to 1992. During this period, the

globalization indices remained horizontal and experienced a common break in 1991. The

political globalization index rose remarkably after 1991. Economic globalization increased

in upper–middle income countries until 2007 and remained stable in the following period.

Although cultural globalization remained at a low level compared to economic and political

globalization, it continued its increasing trend from 1994 to 2020. Graph 3 shows the

globalization indices for the lower–middle income group. Throughout the period, political

globalization reached higher values than economic and cultural globalization. Although

the values of the political and economic globalization indices were close to each other in

the period 1980–1990, political globalization increased further in the following years and

a separation occurred between the indices. It can be stated that the increasing trend of

economic globalization in lower–middle income countries slowed down and remained

Long–run elasticity coefficients were also estimated by the Dynamic Least Squares (DOLS) method developed

by Stock & Watson (1993) and the Canonical Cointegration Regression (CCR) method developed by Park

(1992). However, the findings obtained from the DOLS and CCR methods were not reported because they were

parallel to the FMOLS findings.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17, Nº. 1

May 2026, pp. 77-99

Dynamıc Relatıonshıps Among Dımensıons of Globalızatıon:Econometrıc Analysıs

on Country Income Groups

Can Saglam, Rahmi Yamak

stable after 2007. In Graph 4, the indices are presented for the low income group. In low

income countries, political globalization was higher than economic and cultural

globalization between 1980 and 2020. The difference between political globalization and

other dimensions of globalization has increased, especially since the early 2000s. In this

income group, cultural globalization had the lowest level of globalization compared to

other dimensions.

ADF and PP unit root test results for stationary analysis are presented in Table 2.

According to the ADF and PP unit root test results, it was found that the economic,

cultural, and political globalization series were not stationary at their levels, but all three

series were stationary at the first difference in all country income groups.

Graph 1. Globalization Indices for High

Income Group

Graph 2. Globalization Indices for Upper–

Middle Income Group

Graph 3. Globalization Indices for Lower–

Middle Income Group

Graph 4. Globalization Indices for Low

Income Group

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17, Nº. 1

May 2026, pp. 77-99

Dynamıc Relatıonshıps Among Dımensıons of Globalızatıon:Econometrıc Analysıs

on Country Income Groups

Can Saglam, Rahmi Yamak

Table 2. Unit Root Test Results

ADF

Intercept

Trend–

Intercept

Trend–

Intercept

High Income Group

LECO

-1.238 (0)

-0.300 (0)

-1.148 [3]

-0.735 [3]

ΔLECO

-4.442*** (0)

-4.478*** (0)

-4.423*** [2]

-4.456*** [2]

LCUL

-0.420 (0)

-1.144 (0)

-0.423 [3]

-1.484 [3]

ΔLCUL

-5.170*** (0)

-5.104*** (0)

-5.140*** [2]

-5.062*** [2]

LPOL

-1.287 (6)

-2.391 (6)

-0.464 [2]

-2.086 [3]

ΔLPOL

-3.488** (2)

-3.841** (0)

-3.912*** [4]

-3.840** [4]

Upper–Middle Income Group

LECO

-1.372 (0)

-0.168 (0)

-1.310 [2]

-0.422 [2]

ΔLECO

-4.776*** (0)

-4.886*** (0)

-4.803*** [2]

-4.897*** [1]

LCUL

0.203 (0)

-2.760 (0)

0.097 [3]

-2.818 [3]

ΔLCUL

-5.889*** (0)

-5.785*** (0)

-5.908*** [3]

-5.816*** [3]

LPOL

-0.343 (0)

-1.510 (0)

-0.374 [3]

-1.782 [3]

ΔLPOL

-6.110*** (0)

-6.038*** (0)

-6.129*** [3]

-6.058*** [3]

Lower–Middle Income Group

LECO

-1.981 (0)

0.127 (0)

-1.857 [1]

-0.053 [3]

ΔLECO

-4.085*** (0)

-4.049** (1)

-4.026*** [3]

-4.324*** [5]

LCUL

-0.880 (3)

-2.272 (1)

-0.146 [0]

-2.429 [1]

ΔLCUL

-3.199** (1)

-4.341*** (0)

-4.274*** [6]

-4.139** [7]

LPOL

-0.754 (0)

-0.672 (0)

-0.705 [3]

-1.315 [3]

ΔLPOL

-3.766*** (0)

-3.768** (0)

-3.766*** [0]

-3.768** [0]

Low Income Group

LECO

-1.377 (0)

-2.005 (0)

-2.101 [36]

-1.818 [5]

ΔLECO

-5.469*** (1)

-5.638*** (1)

-6.491***[28]

-11.15***[38]

LCUL

-0.315 (0)

-2.275 (1)

-0.435 [2]

-2.268 [3]

ΔLCUL

-4.499*** (0)

-4.430*** (0)

-4.499*** [0]

-4.430*** [0]

LPOL

-0.269 (0)

-1.613 (0)

-0.282 [3]

-1.765 [1]

ΔLPOL

-4.723** (1)

-4.644** (1)

-5.059*** [6]

-4.986** [6]

Note: ***, **, and * represent %1, %5, and %10 significance levels, respectively. ∆ is the first

difference operator. The maximum lag length is taken 9. The values in parentheses indicate the

optimal lag lengths. The values in square brackets indicate the bandwidths.

The results of the Johansen cointegration test are presented in Table 3. For the high

income group, the trace statistic was obtained as 44.298 and was found to be greater

than the 5% critical value. The maximum eigenvalue statistic was calculated as 26.501.

This value is greater than the critical value at the 5% level. Therefore, the null hypothesis

that the rank is equal to zero was rejected and one cointegration equation was

determined for the high income group. The values of the trace and maximum eigenvalue

statistics for the upper–middle income group were found to be greater than the 5%

critical value. Thus, the null hypothesis expressed as r≤1 was rejected according to both

test results. As seen in Table 3, the trace statistic and the maximum eigenvalue statistic

for the lower–middle income group were calculated as 32.817 and 22.845, respectively.

These values were greater than the critical value at the 5% level. The trace statistic and

maximum eigenvalue statistic for the low income group were determined to be greater

than the 5% critical values. According to the Johansen cointegration test results, there

is long–run relationship among globalization variables for all income groups.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17, Nº. 1

May 2026, pp. 77-99

Dynamıc Relatıonshıps Among Dımensıons of Globalızatıon:Econometrıc Analysıs

on Country Income Groups

Can Saglam, Rahmi Yamak

Table 3. Johansen Cointegration Test Results

High Income Group

Trace Statistic

0.05 Critical Value

Prob.

r=0

44.298

35.192

0.004

r≤1

17.796

20.261

0.105

r≤2

2.383

9.164

0.700

Max. Eigen Statistic

0.05 Critical Value

Prob.

r=0

26.501

22.299

0.012

r≤1

15.413

15.892

0.059

r≤2

2.383

9.164

0.700

Upper–Middle Income Group

Trace Statistic

0.05 Critical Value

Prob.

r=0

45.397

35.192

0.002

r≤1

22.883

20.261

0.021

r≤2

4.957

9.164

0.288

Max. Eigen Statistic

0.05 Critical Value

Prob.

r=0

22.514

22.299

0.046

r≤1

17.926

15.892

0.023

r≤2

4.957

9.164

0.288

Lower–Middle Income Group

Trace Statistic

0.05 Critical Value

Prob.

r=0

37.817

35.192

0.025

r≤1

18.649

20.261

0.082

r≤2

5.429

9.164

0.239

Max. Eigen Statistic

0.05 Critical Value

Prob.

r=0

22.845

22.299

0.041

r≤1

13.219

15.892

0.125

r≤2

5.429

9.164

0.239

Low Income Group

Trace Statistic

0.05 Critical Value

Prob.

r=0

46.680

35.192

0.001

r≤1

19.345

20.261

0.066

r≤2

5.981

9.164

0.192

Max. Eigen Statistic

0.05 Critical Value

Prob.

r=0

27.335

22.299

0.009

r≤1

13.363

15.892

0.119

r≤2

5.981

9.164

0.192

The long–run elasticity coefficients obtained from FMOLS method for the high income

group are reported in Table 4. For Model 1, the long–run coefficients of the cultural and

political globalization variables were found to be positive and statistically significant.

According to findings of Model 2, the coefficients of the economic and political

globalization variables were also found positive and statistically significant. According to

the findings obtained from Models 1 and 2, there is a positive long–run relationship

between economic and cultural globalization variables. As in findings of Model 1, the

long–run effect of political globalization on cultural globalization is also positive.

According to findings of Model 3, it was concluded that the long–run coefficients of

economic and cultural globalization variables were positive and statistically significant.

The findings from Model 3 are similar to the results of Models 1 and 2 in terms of the

long–run effects of economic and cultural globalization.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17, Nº. 1

May 2026, pp. 77-99

Dynamıc Relatıonshıps Among Dımensıons of Globalızatıon:Econometrıc Analysıs

on Country Income Groups

Can Saglam, Rahmi Yamak

Table 4. Long–Run Coefficients: High Income Group

Variable

Coefficient

Standard Error

t-statistic

Model 1

Constant Term

-0.360

0.280

-1.286

LCUL

0.679***

0.244

2.778

LPOL

0.412*

0.207

1.987

Model 2

Constant Term

0.737***

0.162

4.535

LECO

0.411**

0.186

2.206

LPOL

0.447**

0.184

2.423

Model 3

Constant Term

-0.557***

0.106

-5.228

LECO

0.429***

0.098

4.365

LCUL

0.651***

0.114

5.672

Note: ***, **, and * represent %1, %5, and %10 significance levels, respectively.

The long–run coefficients and t–statistics calculated for the upper–middle income group

are presented in Table 5. For Model 1, the long–run elasticity coefficient of the cultural

globalization variable was found to be negative and statistically significant. In Model 1,

the elasticity coefficient of the political globalization variable were found to be positive

and statistically significant at least at the 1% level. Findings indicate that political

globalization affects economic globalization more than cultural globalization. The results

of Model 2, economic globalization has a negative effect on cultural globalization, whereas

political globalization has a positive effect. In Model 2, the positive effect of political

globalization is greater than the negative effect of economic globalization in the long–

run. Models indicate that the long–run relationship between economic and cultural

globalization is negative in the upper–middle income group. According to findings of

Model 3, the long–run coefficients of the economic and cultural globalization variables

were found to be positive and statistically significant at least at the 1% level. FMOLS

findings indicate that the long–run effect of the cultural globalization variable on the

dependent variable is greater than economic globalization.

Table 5. Long–Run Coefficients: Upper–Middle Income Group

Variable

Coefficient

Standard Error

t-statistic

Model 1

Constant Term

1.696***

0.386

4.386

LCUL

-0.641**

0.305

-2.099

LPOL

1.177***

0.209

5.636

Model 2

Constant Term

1.458***

0.120

12.148

LECO

-0.245**

0.116

-2.115

LPOL

0.845***

0.089

9.437

Model 3

Constant Term

-1.555***

0.143

-10.826

LECO

0.630***

0.127

4.942

LCUL

0.795***

0.144

5.524

Note: ***, **, and * represent %1, %5, and %10 significance levels, respectively.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17, Nº. 1

May 2026, pp. 77-99

Dynamıc Relatıonshıps Among Dımensıons of Globalızatıon:Econometrıc Analysıs

on Country Income Groups

Can Saglam, Rahmi Yamak

The long–run elasticity coefficients for the lower–middle income group are given in Table

6. The results of Model 1, long–run coefficient of the cultural globalization variable was

found to be negative. The coefficient of the political globalization variable obtained from

the FMOLS method was calculated as 1.386 and was found to be statistically significant

at least at the 1% level. The findings of Model 1 indicate that political globalization affects

economic globalization more than cultural globalization in the lower–middle income

group. The findings obtained from Models 1 and 2 show that the long–run effects of

economic and cultural globalization on each other are negative in the lower–middle

income group, as well as in the upper–middle income group. In addition to all these

findings, political globalization is a more important determinant of both economic and

cultural globalization in the lower–middle income group. As seen in findings of Model 3,

the long–run coefficients of the economic and cultural globalization variables are positive

and statistically significant at least at the 1% level. When these findings are evaluated

together with the findings of Models 1 and 2, there is a positive long–run relationship

between the political globalization variable and other globalization variables.

Table 6. Long–Run Coefficients: Lower–Middle Income Group

Variable

Coefficient

Standard Error

t-statistic

Model 1

Constant Term

0.423

0.269

1.574

LCUL

-0.588**

0.221

-2.658

LPOL

1.386***

0.254

5.446

Model 2

Constant Term

-0.106

0.382

-0.278

LECO

-0.684**

0.312

-2.189

LPOL

1.585***

0.221

7.159

Model 3

Constant Term

-0.189

0.184

-1.028

LECO

0.616***

0.098

6.288

LCUL

0.504***

0.060

8.365

Note: ***, **, and * represent %1, %5, and %10 significance levels, respectively.

The long–run findings for the low income group are presented in Table 7. According to

findings of Model 1, the long–run elasticity coefficients of cultural and political

globalization variables are positive and statistically significant. In Model 2, the long–run

coefficient of economic globalization was found to be positive and statistically significant.

Therefore, the long–run effects of economic and cultural globalization on each other are

positive. In this respect, the findings are similar to the findings obtained from the high

income group, while they differ from the findings obtained from the upper–middle and

lower–middle income groups. In Model 2, the coefficient of political globalization was

calculated as 0.732 and was found to be statistically significant at least at the 1% level.

Based on these findings, political globalization has a greater long–run effect on cultural

globalization than economic globalization in the low income group. The long–run effects

of economic and cultural globalization on political globalization are positive. Findings

indicate that the long–run effect of cultural globalization on political globalization is

greater than economic globalization in the low income group.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17, Nº. 1

May 2026, pp. 77-99

Dynamıc Relatıonshıps Among Dımensıons of Globalızatıon:Econometrıc Analysıs

on Country Income Groups

Can Saglam, Rahmi Yamak

Table 7. Long–Run Coefficients: Low Income Group

Variable

Coefficient

Standard Error

t-statistic

Model 1

Constant Term

1.719***

0.113

15.189

LCUL

0.326***

0.083

3.911

LPOL

0.232**

0.089

2.602

Model 2

Constant Term

-1.994***

0.442

-4.504

LECO

0.596**

0.258

2.308

LPOL

0.732***

0.140

5.206

Model 3

Constant Term

0.497*

0.287

1.733

LECO

0.413***

0.130

3.178

LCUL

0.630***

0.066

9.517

Note: ***, **, and * represent %1, %5, and %10 significance levels, respectively.

The long–run relationship among economic, cultural, and political globalization variables

was investigated for all country income groups. The long–run effects of the dimensions

of globalization on each other are positive in high and low income countries. Unlike these

findings, the long–run relationships between economic and cultural globalization are

negative in upper–middle and lower–middle income countries. Cultural globalization is

the determinant of the economic globalization process in high and low income countries.

Findings indicate that political globalization affects economic globalization more than

cultural globalization in upper–middle and lower–middle income countries. The long–run

effects of economic and political globalization on cultural globalization are similar in high

income countries. For other country income groups, political integration is the

determinant of cultural integration processes. Economic globalization affects the political

globalization process more than cultural globalization in lower–middle income countries.

In all remaining country income groups, cultural globalization is the determinant of the

political globalization process. Cultural globalization is the dimension at the center of the

globalization process, and economic and political processes contribute to other processes

in high income countries. The globalization process is essentially determined by political

processes in upper–middle and lower–middle income countries. Furthermore, economic

and cultural processes significantly support political integration in these country groups.

There is no dominant dimension in the globalization process in low income countries and

all dimensions of globalization promote each other to a certain extent.

Conclusion

This study attempts to empirically determine the degree and direction of long–run

relationships among economic, cultural, and political globalization. The study covers the

period 1980–2020 and four different country income groups. Globalization variables used

in econometric analyses were obtained from the KOF Swiss Economic Institute. The long–

run relationships among the dimensions of globalization were analyzed using Johansen

cointegration test. Long–run elasticity coefficients were calculated using FMOLS method.

According to the findings obtained from Johansen cointegration test, there is long–run

relationship among economic, cultural, and political globalization for all income groups.

According to the long–run elasticity coefficient findings, the long–run effects of the

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17, Nº. 1

May 2026, pp. 77-99

Dynamıc Relatıonshıps Among Dımensıons of Globalızatıon:Econometrıc Analysıs

on Country Income Groups

Can Saglam, Rahmi Yamak

dimensions of globalization on each other are positive in high and low income countries.

Unlike these findings, the long–run relationships between economic and cultural

globalization are negative in upper–middle and lower–middle income countries.

Findings regarding the interrelationships of economic and political globalization processes

indicate that these processes support each other and are intertwined (Held, 1999; Held

& McGrew, 2000). Political integration processes are supported by economic integration

and the fact that countries are party to international organizations that are active in the

governance of the global economy. As countries increase their trade openness, political

communication between countries increases and political globalization processes are

promoted. In addition, economic integration occurs as a result of countries being included

in the global governance mechanism within the context of the policies they implement

and increasing their level of political integration (Ohmae, 1995; Friedman, 1999).

Therefore, economic globalization occurs with the integration of countries into the

international global economy, but this process needs to be supported by political

regulations (Keohane & Nye, 2000; Rodrik, 2011). International economic organizations,

regional unions, and trade agreements support global economic integration through

political arrangements (Ruggie, 1998; Steger, 2003; Heywood, 2011). As a result, the

findings that economic and political globalization processes positively affect each other

indicate that these processes promote each other and support the views in this direction.

The long–run effects of economic and cultural globalization processes on each other were

found to be positive in high and low income countries. These findings are in line with

expectations, considering that processes such as the increase in international trade, the

production, consumption, and spread of cultural products and services on a global scale,

the change in consumer behavior, and standardization encourage each other (Steger,

2003; Ritzer, 2010). Moreover, findings indicate that increased economic integration may

lead to cultural homogenization (Ritzer, 2010) or hybridization (Pieterse, 1995) in high

and low income countries. Especially the abundance of cultural capital and the easier

adoption of global consumption patterns in high income countries (Ritzer, 2010) may

cause cultural and economic integration to positively affect each other. On the other

hand, the long–run effects of economic and cultural globalization on each other were

determined to be negative in upper–middle and lower–middle income countries. This

finding indicates that global economic integration may create pressure on the

preservation of local cultural identities in relevant country groups (Pieterse, 1995) and

may cause cultural heterogeneity rather than homogeneity (Friedman, 1995). It is

thought that increasing economic globalization may lead to strong reactions towards the

preservation of cultural identities in these country groups. In this regard, it can be stated

that cultural processes are much more resistant to economic processes in lower–middle

income countries. There is a positive relationship between cultural and political

globalization in all income groups in the long–run. These findings imply that increased

cultural integration positively affects global political structures and processes. As a result

of the spread of global norms and values, cultural globalization can be expected to

increase its influence on political processes (Robertson, 1992; Ruggie, 1998). The

findings are in line with expectations, considering that the spread of universal values

such as human rights, freedom, and democracy on a global scale can shape international

political arrangements and global governance (Held, 1995; Held & McGrew, 2002).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17, Nº. 1

May 2026, pp. 77-99

Dynamıc Relatıonshıps Among Dımensıons of Globalızatıon:Econometrıc Analysıs

on Country Income Groups

Can Saglam, Rahmi Yamak

According to the statistical findings, cultural globalization is the dimension at the center

of the globalization process, and economic and political processes contribute to other

processes in high income countries. The determining effect of the cultural dimension on

globalization processes in high income countries can be explained by the effect of high

education levels, cultural diversity, and advanced communication technologies. The

globalization mechanism operates similarly in upper–middle and lower–middle income

countries, and the globalization process is essentially determined by political processes.

Moreover, economic and cultural processes significantly support political integration in

these country groups. In particular, the decisive role played by foreign investments and

international trade on political stability may increase this effect. It may increase the

impact of political processes on economic and cultural integration due to countries that

aim to strengthen or maintain their place in the global economy or are economically

dependent on foreign countries. In low income countries, there is no dominant dimension

in the globalization process. All dimensions of globalization promote each other. This

study empirically supports the view that the globalization process represents a holistic

process that emerges as a result of the interactions of the dimensions it contains. The

findings demonstrate that the degree and direction of the relationships among the

dimensions of globalization may differ according to the income levels of the countries. In

general, the findings indicate that political integration promotes globalization processes,

while economic and cultural integration processes support political integration.

References

Abu–Lughod, J. (1999). New York, Chicago, Los Angeles: America’s global cities.

University of Minnesota Press.

Acharya, A. (2017). After liberal hegemony: The advent of a multiplex world order. Ethics

& international affairs, 31(3), 271–285. https://doi.org/10.1017/S089267941700020X

Amin, S. (2006). Beyond US hegemony: Assessing the prospects for a multipolar world.

Zed Books.

Appadurai, A. (1990). Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. In M.

Featherstone (Ed.), Global culture: Nationalism, globalization and modernity (pp. 295–

310). Sage Publications.

Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. University

of Minnesota Press.

Bhagwati, J. (2004). In defense of globalization. Oxford University Press.

Castells, M. (1996). “The rise of the network society”, the information age: Economy,

society, culture. Blackwell.

Dickey, D., & Fuller, W. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series

with a unit root. Econometrica, 49(4), 1057–1072. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912517

Dreher, A., & Gaston, N. (2008). Has globalization increased inequality?. Review of

International Economics, 16(3), 516–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

9396.2008.00743.x

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17, Nº. 1

May 2026, pp. 77-99

Dynamıc Relatıonshıps Among Dımensıons of Globalızatıon:Econometrıc Analysıs

on Country Income Groups

Can Saglam, Rahmi Yamak

Friedman, J. (1995). Global system, globalization and the parameters of modernity. In

M. Featherstone, S. Lash, & R. Robertson (Eds.), Global modernities (pp. 69–90). Sage

Publications.

Friedman, T. (1999). The lexus and the olive tree: Understanding globalization. Anchor

Books.

Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Polity Press.

Goldstein, A. (2020). US–China Rivalry in the twenty–first century: Déjà vu and Cold War

II. China International Strategy Review, 2(1), 48–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42533-

020-00036-w

Gygli, S., Haelg, F., Potrafke, N., & Sturm, J. (2019). The KOF globalisation index–

revisited. Review of International Organizations, 14(3), 543–574.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-019-09344-2

Hannerz, U. (1996). Transnational connections: Culture, people, places. Routledge.

Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity: An enquiry into the origins of cultural

change. Blackwell.

Held, D. (1995). Democracy and the global order: From the modern state to cosmopolitan

governance. Stanford University Press.

Held, D. (1999). The transformation of political community: Rethinking democracy in the

context of globalization. In I. Shapiro, & C. Hacker–Cordon (Eds), Democracys’s edges

(pp. 84–111). Cambridge University Press.

Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., & Perraton, J. (1999). Global transformations:

Politics, economics and culture. Stanford University Press.

Held, D., & McGrew, A. (2000). The global transformations reader. Polity Press.

Held, D., & McGrew, A. (Eds). (2002). Governing globalization: Power, authority and

global governance. Polity Press.

Heywood, A. (2011). Global politics. Palgrave Macmillan.

Hoffmann, S. (2002). Clash of globalizations. Foreign Affairs, 81(4), 104–115.

https://doi.org/10.2307/20033243

Howard–Hassmann, R. (2010). Can globalization promote human rights?. Pennsylvania

State University Press.

Irwin, D. (2020). The pandemic adds momentum to the deglobalization trend. Peterson

Institute for International Economics, 23.

James, H. (2021). Globalization’s Coming Golden Age. Foreign Affairs, 100(3), 10–19.

Johansen, S. (1988). Statistical analysis of cointegration vectors. Journal of Economic

Dynamics and Control, 12(2–3), 231–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-

1889(88)90041-3

Johansen, S., & Juselius, K. (1990). Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on

cointegration with application to the demand for money. Oxford Bulletin of Economics

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17, Nº. 1

May 2026, pp. 77-99

Dynamıc Relatıonshıps Among Dımensıons of Globalızatıon:Econometrıc Analysıs

on Country Income Groups

Can Saglam, Rahmi Yamak

and Statistics, 52(2), 169–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-

0084.1990.mp52002003.x

Keohane, R. (1995). Hobbes’s dilemma and institutional change in world politics:

Sovereignty in international society. In H. Holm, & G. Sorensen (Eds.), Whose world

order?: Uneven globalization and the end of the cold war. Westview Press.

Keohane, R., & Nye, J. (2000). Introduction. In J. Nye & J. Donahue (Eds.), Governance

in a globalizing world (pp. 1–41). Brooking Institution Press.

Lund, S., Manyika, J., Woetzel, J., Bughin, J., & Krishnan, M. (2019). Globalization in

transition: The future of trade and value chains. McKinsey & Company.

Maher, R. (2018). Bipolarity and the future of US–China relations. Political science

quarterly, 133(3), 497–525. https://doi.org/10.1002/polq.12801

McGrew, A. (2008). Globalization and global politics. In J. Baylis, S. Smith, & P. Owens

(Eds.), The globalization of world politics: An Introduction to International Relations (pp.

19–34). Oxford University Press.

McLuhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg Galaxy: The making of typographic man. University

of Toronto Press.

McNamara, K., & Newman, A. (2020). The big reveal: COVID–19 and globalization's great

transformations. International Organization, 74(S1), E59–E77.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818320000387

Meyer, J. (1980). The world polity and the authority of the nation–state. In A. Bergesen

(Ed.), Studies of the modern world–system (pp. 109–137). Academic Press.

Modelski, G. (1968). Communism and the globalization of politics. International Studies

Quarterly, 12(4), 380–393. https://doi.org/10.2307/3013524

Modelski, G. (2007). Globalization as evolutionary process. In G. Modelski, T. Devezas &

W. Thompson (Eds.), globalization as evolutionary process: Modeling global change (pp.

11–29). Routledge.

Moffitt, B. (2016). The global rise of populism: Performance, political style, and

representation. Stanford University Press.

Ohmae, K. (1995). The end of the nation–state: The rise of regional economies. The Free

Press.

Owen, J. (2021). Two emerging international orders? China and the United States.

International Affairs, 97(5), 1415–1431. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiab111

Park, J. (1992). Canonical cointegrating regressions. Econometrica, 60(1), 119–143.

https://doi.org/10.2307/2951679

Phillips, P., & Hansen, B. (1990). Statistical inference in instrumental variables regression

with I(1) processes. The Review of Economic Studies, 57(1), 99–125.

https://doi.org/10.2307/2297545

Phillips, P., & Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regression.

Biometrika, 75(2), 335–346. https://doi.org/10.2307/2336182

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17, Nº. 1

May 2026, pp. 77-99

Dynamıc Relatıonshıps Among Dımensıons of Globalızatıon:Econometrıc Analysıs

on Country Income Groups

Can Saglam, Rahmi Yamak

Pieterse, J. N. (1995). Globalization as hybridization. In M.Featherstone, S. Lash, & R.

Robertson (Eds.), Global Modernities (pp. 45–68). Sage Publications.

Potrafke, N. (2015). The evidence on globalisation. The World Economy, 38(3), 509–552.

https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.12174

Rennen, W., & Martens, P. (2003). The globalisation timeline. Integrated

Assessment, 4(3), 137–144. https://doi.org/10.1076/iaij.4.3.137.23768

Ritzer, G. (2007). The globalization of nothing. Pine Forge Press.

Ritzer, G. (2010). Globalization: A basic text. John Wiley & Sons.

Robertson, R. (1992). Globalization: Social theory and global culture. Sage Publications.

Robinson, W. (2007). Theories of globalization. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), Blackwell companion

to globalization. Blackwell.

Rodrik, D. (2011). The globalization paradox: Democracy and the future of the world

economy. W.W. Norton & Company.

Rosenau, J. (1997). Along the domestic–foreign frontier: exploring governance in a

turbulent world. Cambridge University Press.

Ruggie, J. (1998). Constructing the world polity: Essays on international

institutionalization. Routledge.

Scholte, J. A. (2005). Globalization: A critical introduction. Palgrave Macmillan.

Sklair, L. (2000). The transnational capitalist class. Blackwell.

Steger, M. (2003). Globalization: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.

Steger, M. (2019). Globalisms: Facing the populist challenge. Bloomsbury Publishing PLC.

Steger, M. (2021). The state of Globality in a (post) –COVID world. New Global Studies,

15(2–3), 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1515/ngs-2021-0003

Steger, M., & James, P. (2020). Disjunctive globalization in the era of the great

unsettling. Theory, culture & society, 37(7–8), 187–203.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276420957744

Stiglitz, J. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. W.W. Norton & Company.

Stock, J., & Watson, M. (1993). A simple estimator of cointegrating vectors in higher

order integrated system. Econometrica, 61(4), 783–820.

https://doi.org/10.2307/2951763

Tomlinson, J. (1999). Globalization and culture. University of Chicago Press.

Van Bergeijk, P. (2019). Deglobalization 2.0: Trade and openness during the great

depression and the great recession. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Wallerstein, I. (1974). The modern world–system: Capitalist agriculture and the origins

of the europena world–economy in the sixteenth century. Academic Press.

Xuetong, Y. (2020). Bipolar rivalry in the early digital age. The Chinese Journal of

International Politics, 13(3), 313–341. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/poaa007

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 17, Nº. 1

May 2026, pp. 77-99

Dynamıc Relatıonshıps Among Dımensıons of Globalızatıon:Econometrıc Analysıs

on Country Income Groups

Can Saglam, Rahmi Yamak

Zhang, Z. (2018). The belt and road initiative: China’s new geopolitical strategy?. China

Quarterly of International Strategic Studies, 4(3), 327–343.

https://doi.org/10.1142/S2377740018500240

Zhao, S. (2022). The US–China rivalry in the emerging bipolar world: Hostility,

alignment, and power balance. Journal of Contemporary China, 31(134), 169–185.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2021.1945733