Because of the heterogeneity of preferences that persist despite globalization, they are often perceived as a process of relentless homogenization. Tolerance of inequality and the growing demand for redistribution, attitudes towards risks and property rights, in favour of human rights, set the stage. In some cases, globalization even serves to accentuate differences and not to homogenize them. With the growing emergence of a global citizen consciousness comes resistance to globalization and its effects. A growing number of movements and organizations have taken the debate to the international level. While it may have limitations, this trend is a response to the growing importance of global issues that are causing the planet. Regional actors, whether regional conglomerates such as Mercosur and the European Union, or important countries considered important regional players such as China, the United States and India, are increasingly interested in world government.  The work of Martina Timmermann et al., Institutionalizing Northeast Asia: Regional Steps towards Global Governance(  Douglas Lewis, Global Governance and the Quest for Justice – Volume I: International and Regional Organizations;  Olav Schram Stokke, “Investigating the Consequences of International Regimes,” which discusses the construction of northern or Arctic regions in the context of international relations;  Jeffery Hart and Joan Edelman Spero, “Globalization and Global Governance in the 21st Century,” which discusses the initiative of countries such as Mexico, Brazil, India, China, Taiwan and South Korea, “important regional players” seeking “a place at the global decision-making table”;  Dr. Frank Altemöller, “International Trade: Challenges for Regional and Global Governance: A comparison between Regional Integration Models in Eastern Europe and Africa – and the role of the WTO” und viele andere. . . .