Logically, the debate about the roots and impacts of globalization are mostly confined within these subject matters: the foundation and thrusts behind economic globalization. the level to which market actor or state players are having power over socioeconomic growths. and market-driven restraints to liberal macroeconomic structures (Unay 2006). Possibly, in analyzing these concerns, scholars from various systematic fields have presented different descriptions. David Held (1999) summarises three general perspectives of globalization: the skeptics, the hyper globalists, and the transformationalists. The hyper globalists, composed of Marxists and neoliberals, put emphasis on the economic side of globalization. The hyperglobalist perspective argues that transformations in the global economy are launching a ‘new epoch of human history’ (Yu, Chow, Kao 2010, 143) wherein national boundaries have become outdated economic entities. In their opinion, globalization has given birth to a sole global market wherein multinational entities from various nations dynamically vie with one another. Simply put, hyper globalists argue that current globalization marks a new period wherein populations across the globe are ever more placed under the controls of the global marketplace (Held 1999). According to Westra (2010), neoliberal hyper globalists approve the increase in global prosperity and play down the reality of increasing inequality among and within individual countries, whilst Marxist hyper globalists criticize the widening of inequality.On the contrary, the skeptics believe that globalization is basically a myth that masks the truth of a global marketplace ever more fragmented into three main regional unions wherein territorial states continue to be highly dominant. They claim that current globalization is not radical or unknown since present-day interdependence is similar in extent to the latter part.