The framework, which includes the likes of foreign exchange policies and related issues pertinent to companies engaging in global operations in various economic markets and sectors. With authors suggesting that Politics (or the State) and Globalization are incompatible (Cameron Palan 2004) to that of “domestic politics remain resilient in the face of globalization” and “income inequality” (Mahler 2004), privatized economies who remain under the control of governments (Keating 2004) and the effect of such globalization on the society by influencing the law policies and policy-making procedures of a country or region (Caruso 2006) which are inadvertently brought about by the ruling political party of the day. One might, therefore, draw the conclusion that politics certainly do influence globalization issues within a specific country, making it either attractive or unattractive to the company seeking such expansion opportunities, with the political infrastructure once again influencing the resultant income equalities or inequalities of such capital inflow and direct foreign investment within a defined region. These opinions can be viewed from either end of the spectrum, and within this analysis, the issue of globalization is viewed as a positive aspect of an economy, and discussion will be made regarding the positive impact politics can have thereupon.The very definition of globalization itself remains a contested topic amongst academics, and discontents alike. However, in order to view and argue the case of globalization, an assumed or at the very least an accepted definition of the concept and term is required to gauge the impact of politics thereupon. Scholte (2000) provides that a widely accepted fact is held amongst politicians and marketing agents that the concept remains a “malleable, catchall term that can be invoked in whatever way the user finds convenient”, however, this is inconvenient with respect to “serious social analysis and the policy".