Chaimaa, your question is probably too general. You have to define first what you mean by globalization. Also, agreement between whom?

I understand the key aspect of globalization as the free movement of capital, also at low cost. Thus, investment moves easily across the globe, creating areas of high labor demand or high unemployment. Then local governments (if they are good) pursue some public policies to make people happier.

Suppose that some government has managed to improve local welfare. For example, by introducing high royalties on natural resources and then distributing them across population. This may not make multinational companies happier, because it lowers their profits. They may try to force local government to accept some international public policy that will lower their costs. Good government (staying for people) will not accept that. Another will accept a bribe and agree... Do you mean a story like that?

Well said  Yuri, I think this question requires to be narrow down and be clear.

I you consider "real existing globalization", where transnational political integration lags behind transnational ecomic integration, it is harder to reach an agreement, because the national contract partners are caught in a prisoners dilemma.

I think it depends on whether there is domestic consensus about the characther of "globalization". Is it a positive or a negative force for the developmental issues in the country? (domestic coalitions tend to get organized in that axis). If there is consensus about the characther of globalization decisions will be easier