GLOCAL February 2014 | Page 41

1970 to 1996 for 127 countries, trade openness and portfolio investment flows seem to affect democracies negatively (the former with a constant and the latter with an increasing effect over time), while the effects of foreign direct investments and the spread of democratic ideas seem to have had a positive impact (the former with a weakening and the latter with a persisting effect over time). Proponents and/or beneficiaries of economic globalization, however, have either completely ignored or downplayed the negative externalities of this multidimensional process. and investment in recent decades has increased the ―destruction of the environment and local, sustainable livelihoods.‖ The term glocal has been coined to highlight the interplay between the global and local perspectives. This hybrid term draws our attention to the increasing interdependency between the global and local levels. The superiority of a glocal perspective over a highly abstract global one, with respect to environmental issues, could be seen in the debate over the Global Celebrating or championing Environmental Facility (GEF), which was created in 1991 as an international mechanism under the supervision of the World Bank, UNDP, and UNEP to provide funds and technical assistance for national initiatives addressing global environmental problems. The Page indiscriminate ly portrays almost a surreal picture of what is actually taking place on the ground. Overemphasis on the highly abstract global dimension of world politics always runs the risk of losing touch with reality. As prominent Indian critic of globalization, Vandana Shiva, notes, globalization of trade 39 globalization