According to one popular view, globalisation is the "inexorable integration of markets, nation-states and technologies that is enabling individuals, corporations and nation-states to reach round the world farther, faster, deeper and cheaper than ever before"
By contrast, some groups of scholars and activists view globalisation not as an inexorable process but as a deliberate, ideological project of economic liberalisation that subjects states and individuals to more intense market forces.
It used to be widely celebrated as a new birth of freedom: better connections in a more open world would improve people's lives by making new products and ideas universally available, breaking down barriers to trade and democratic institutions, resolve tensions between old adversaries, and empower more and more people.
It really depends who you ask, but many people these days would probably determine globalisation as a "Westernisation" of the world by dominant states ...but perhaps to the detriment and well-being of various groups, the sovereignty and identity of countries, the disparities among peoples, and the health of the environment.
Something the Romans did for the uncivilised world 2,000 years ago.