Globalization Index 2016, zip ( MB)
Globalization Index 2015, zip ( MB)
Globalization Index 2014, zip ( MB)
Globalization Index 2013, zip ( MB)
Globalization Index 2012, zip ( MB)
Globalization Index 2011, zip ( MB)
Globalization Index 2010, zip ( MB)
Globalization Index 2009, zip ( MB)
Globalization Index 2008, zip ( KB)
Globalization Index 2007, zip ( KB)
Globalization Index 2006, zip ( KB)
Globalization Index 2005, zip ( KB)
Globalization Index 2002, zip ( KB)
For simplicity, let us assume that all the companies are the same size in the market; due to the fragmentation of the market, this approximation is valid for most companies in the market. The higher the demand is, the more supplying companies a fragmented market requires. The market share in a fragmented market is fairly irrelevant. The demand is uniformly fragmented in the market and therefore the supply, due to the characteristics of the product, is also uniformly fragmented. The market structure is the driving element within this simplified analytical view. The reason for entering this market, besides the desire to exert control, is to increase one's own added value within the value chain. This reasoning is especially valid for the intermediate products (standards). The reasoning for convenience such as services (hotels) or fast-food is similar, but through the differentiation of the product and the end customers' behaviour, the causal relation has to be reconsidered, taking into account the comparative characteristics of the product or service offered. Indeed, combined with the fragmentation of the final demand, Type 2 fragmentation is an indicator for the necessary polypolistic offer structure to reach the next transformation stage of the value add chain or to be distributed to the final customer.
And while globalization has helped economies and societies expand and broaden, it's also made them more homogenized, critics charge. Case in point: The growth of international chains that results in the same restaurant – a Starbucks or a Shake Shack – on every corner, or the same retailers – Apple, Nike, The Gap – in every town. As these examples suggest, the so-called cultural exchange has been largely one-sided: American goods and culture have spread to other countries more than those of any other nation, often to the detriment of smaller, indigenous brands and outfits that can't compete with global giants, as mentioned above. So, countries end up with societies very similar to one another.