Globalisation and The State: Nilüfer Karacasulu Göksel
Globalisation and The State: Nilüfer Karacasulu Göksel
Globalisation and The State: Nilüfer Karacasulu Göksel
globalisation undermines the state. Thus, it will not directly address the
consequences of globalisation for state-society relations, for democracy, civil
society, migration, national identity and culture which are related issues.4
This article regards the relationship between the state and
globalisation as one of both continuity and change. It is continuous, because
at the core of governance arrangements in the contemporary globalising
world, state relations persist. However, there are changes in the character of
the state, such as its capacities and policy contents brought about by
globalisation. 5 This article has reached this conclusion through an analysis of
relations between globalisation and the state.
The first section of this article examines in general, the decline of the
state as a consequence of globalisation. It has been argued that with
globalisation, the Westphalia system is already past history - there have been
violations to state sovereignty. In this section, these violations to state
sovereignty are examined through economic, political and military/security
globalisation. The second section examines in general; the continued strength
of the state, and presents the counter arguments. In conclusion, it is argued
that globalisation has contributed to the limitation of sovereign statehood; yet,
the state still survives in the era of globalisation.
Decline of State
Virtually all nation-states become part of a larger pattern of global
transformations and global flows. Goods, capital, people, knowledge,
communications and weapons, as well as crime, pollutants, fashions and
beliefs, rapidly move across territorial boundaries. It has become a fully
interconnected global order 6
Since the end of the Cold War, the power of state-centric political and
military rivalries to dominate international relations has diminished. National
borders cannot stop the flow of information and other information technology
developments. As Rosenau (1990) points out in post international politics,
there are important dimensions of global life other than the relations between
nations. Indeed, in the contemporary world, we have to accept that there is a
See R. Robertson, London, Newbury: Sage Publications (1992), Globalisation,
London: Sage Pub. (1992); D. Held, Democracy and the Global Order, Cambridge:
Polity Press (1995), A. Giddens, Beyond Left and Right, London: Polity (1994); U.
Beck, Risk Society, London: Sage (1992); F. Keyman, Globalisation, State and
Identity; NJ: Humanities Press (1997), R. Axtman, Liberal Democracy in the 21st
Century; Manchester: Manchester University Press (1996),
5
Jan Aart Scholte (1997), Global Capitalism and the State, International Affairs, 73
(3), pp. 427- 452.
6
David Held, A. McGrew (1998), The End of the Old Order?, Review of
International Studies, 24, p.230.
4
transformation in social and economic dynamics. One needs only to read the
works of Peter Drucker and John Naisbitt to appreciate some of these
transformations.7 There are New Realities. One of these new realities is
argued to be the shift from an industrial to an information society or postindustrial society.8 Technological advances are bringing about profound
changes in economic, political and social life. For example, it is transforming
the location of economic activity; the nature of competition and the character
of production processes. The most powerful of the emerging technological
changes is the information revolution (advances in computers and global
telecommunication systems). The Information revolution and technological
advancement have accelerated globalisation in the last two decades.
What is globalisation? Globalisation may be defined as the integration
of economic, social and cultural relations across borders.9 Today, many
commentators have gone beyond simply restating basic arguments about
economic globalisation. There is now also political globalisation and
military/security globalisation.
Three dimensions of globalisation are apparent in the relationship
between the sovereign state and the globalised world. I shall briefly examine
these arguments and discuss how they violate state sovereignty.
Dimension 1: Economic Globalisation
Economic
globalisation
involves
production,
distribution,
management, trade and finance.10 The key features of economic globalisation
are well known and need only a brief re-iteration here. First, multinational
corporations (MNCs) have greatly accelerated integration of the global
economy. In the 1960s and 70s, foreign direct investments (FDI) by the
American MNCs increased dramatically. In the 1980s, Japanese and west
European FDI in parallel to US investments increased. In a relatively short
period, newly industrialized countries MNCs (such as Taiwan and South
P. Drucker, Managing in Turbulent Times, New York: Harper & Row (1980); P.
Drucker, New Realities, California (1991); P. Drucker, Managing For the Future:
The Nineties and Beyond, New York: Truman M. Talley (1992); John Naisbitt,
Megatrends: Ten New Directions Transforming Our Lives, New York: Warner Books
(1982).
8
P. Drucker, Managing For the Future: The Nineties and Beyond, New York:
Truman M. Talley (1992)
9
It is still debated whether interdependence, integration and globalism are
merely different words for the same condition. See R.O. Keohane and J. S. Nye Jr,
Globalisation: Whats New? Whats Not? (And so What?), Foreign Policy, Spring
2000, pp. 104-19.
10
George Sorenson (Special Issue 1998), IR Theory after the Cold War, Review of
International Studies, 24, pp.83-100.
7
11
The position of home and host country governments vis-a-vis MNCs is highly
debated among many scholars. See especially J. H. Dunning , Multinational
Enterprises and the Global Economy, London: Addison Wesley (1993); R. Vernon,
Sovereignty at Bay, New York: Basic Books (1971).
12
Susan Strange (1997), The Erosion of the State, Current History, 96 (613), pp.
365-369.
13
Ibid., pp. 230 ; Victor D. Chan (2000), Globalisation and the Study of
International Security, Journal of Peace
Research, 37(3), pp. 391-403.
24
David Held (1989), Political Theory and The Modern State, Stanford California:
Stanford Univeristy Press, pp. 231.
25
Paul Q Hirst and Grahame Thompson (1996), Globalisation in Question: The
International Economy and the Possibilities of Governance, Cambridge: Blackwell,
pp. 186.
26
the late twentieth century29 Prior to World War I and under the classical gold
standard of fixed exchange rates national governments had very little effective
control over their economies. The state may be reverting to its 19th century
role in the economy and this is not something new.
I believe that these arguments which treat history as continuous are
difficult to defend. It is like arguing that election campaigns have not been
transformed by the use of television in campaign because voters still vote.
Interaction with Other Forces
It is difficult to separate the role of nation-state from the other forces
driving transformations in the contemporary world. Indeed, states are
considered to interact with each other, so they can and do affect each other.
States are said to be social actors, capable of knowing, valuing and ordering
and moreover, of doing all these things through an inter-subjective process of
socialisation. Thus, states are involved in constant social interaction with
other members of international society and they are not isolated individual
units. Hence, globalisation is not an entirely separate phenomenon from
international society. Globalisation and international society interact to
produce contemporary world politics. For example, many of the policies of
deregulation, privatisation and liberalisation that are seen as forces of
economic globalisation, are part of interaction between states (socialisation
process).30
State Support
Developments in the twentieth century have not reduced the
significance of sovereign statehood. The world is still made up of independent
states that are concerned about their territorial and economic integrity and
political independence. The argument that globalisation is irreversible can be
challenged31. The most significant changes in financial globalisation are
10
London & New York: Routledge, pp. 193-210; Robert Gilpin (2000), The Challenge
of Global Capitalism, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
32
Eric Hellenier (1996),Post-Globalisation, Robert Boyer & Daniel Drache (Eds),
in States Against Markets: the Limits of Globalisation, London & New York:
Routledge, pp. 193-210; Gerald Epstein (1996),International Capital Mobility and
The Scope for National Economic Management, Robert Boyer & Daniel
Drache(Eds), in States Against Markets: the Limits of Globalisation, London & New
York: Routledge, pp. 211-224.
33
Robert H. Jackson and Alan James (1993), The Character of Independent
Statehood, Robert H. Jackson and Alan James (Eds), States in a Changing World,
Oxford: Clanderon Press, pp. 6
34
Peter Evans (Sept 1997), The Eclipse of the State?: Reflections on Stateness in an
Era of Globalisation, World Politics, 50, pp. 62-87; Cem Kozlu (1995), Trkiye
Mucizesi iin Vizyon Araylar ve Asya Modelleri, Ankara: Is Bankas Yaynlar.
35
David Held, A. McGrew (1998), The End of the Old Order?, Review of
International Studies, 24, pp. 219-243.
11
drawing evidence from the same real world. Depending on your viewpoint,
the glass can be seen as half full or half empty.
Analysing these contradictory arguments, it is difficult to make
predictions for the future of the nation-state. Changes associated with
globalisation have significant affects on states. However, it is not evident that
we will reach a fully integrated global economy or a decline of state.
Though you could ask, whether in the future, state sovereignty will be eroded
by supranational authority, at the beginning of the 21st century, nation-states
remain the dominant form of political organisation in the world.
Despite the fact that there are challenges to state sovereignty and
autonomy in the era of globalisation, states hesitate to submit all control to
new forces. Thus, the end of nation state approach by Susan Strange is too
deterministic. It gives the impression that it is an inescapable process. State
sovereignty might be affected by the transformations taking place in the
world, yet it is not intended and depends on unknown circumstances.
Furthermore, there are structural obstacles to the withering away of
the state. Votes have to be cast somewhere, taxes have to be paid to particular
authorities, which can be held accountable for public services such as
education and health. Moreover, states continue to create a regulatory
environment for their economies
In the meantime, it is clear that states now have less control of some
activities on their own territory. With globalisation, borders become more
fluid with the impact of electronic and other flows such as money transfers,
satellite communications, computer data flow, capital flows and merchandise
trade. The contemporary state is unable to control phenomena such as global
companies, global production and trading. States can no longer exercise
control of their financial markets alone. State sovereignty is affected through
multilateral arrangements in the global economy such as IMF, GATT, G 7.
MNCs frustrate states through threat of transfer pricing and relocating their
production facilities. Globalisation has also loosened some important cultural
and psychological underpinnings of sovereignty. For example, with the help
of global communication supra-territorial bonds have been created among a
diverse range of groups, from womens movements to environmentalists.
There is strong evidence that globalisation challenges sovereign state.
Like Held, I consider that the effect of these challenges is likely to
vary under different international and national conditions and it would be
wrong to conclude that because a particular state has experienced a decline in
its international freedom of action, sovereignty, is thereby wholly
undermined.36 The effect of globalisation on different nation states will not
David Held (1989), Political Theory and The Modern State, Stanford, California:
Stanford University Press, pp. 237.
36
12
be the same, because first of all, there is diversity among domestic, historical,
political, socio-cultural and economic conditions (as well as the external
position of a country); thus, nation-states make different policy choices in
response to the same global phenomena. For example, global economic forces
have less effect on the policy options of states such as the United States or
China than of Turkey. Economic globalisation mainly constrains the
bargaining positions of smaller and weaker states.
As a final word, I believe that in the post Cold War world, national
interests still matter a great deal. Each state takes pride in its unique history
and accomplishments. Each states people continue to speak their own
language and to fly their own flag. Considering the document, the national
security strategy of the United States of America presented in September
2002, it seems that the US intends to act as a hegemonic power. The most
recent example of this hegemonic power has been observed in Iraq since the
US led military intervention in 2003. Furthermore, the EU has not reacted as a
collective regional voice on this issue but rather as individual states. While
Germany, France and Belgium protested US policy in Iraq, England
supported it. Thus, in the European Union, as in the world, nationalism
remains as an important force in the era of globalisation. The world is still, in
territorial terms, made up of separate states, each of which enjoys certain
basic sovereign rights. Each state still has its own interests to advance and
defend.