How do you see that globalisation has led to demise of nation state?
Answers
Answered by
1
Globalization alone is not causing the decline of the nation-state - not a single ‘trend’ is able to reduce the power of the most important actor in the international system. Rather, different developments need to be taken into account when examining the situation of the nation-state. After having analyzed in the first part the way, major globalization-developments, like global capitalism, influence the nation-state, I will describe in the second and third part two other movements: internationalization and regionalization. Both are ‘labelled’ with a national/transnational ambiguity, on the one hand strengthening and on the other hand weakening the nation-state. Within the conclusion, I will then argue, that the nation-state is indeed ‘under attack’ - but not only by globalization - and that it has to cope with a changing nature and differing tasks.
According to the definition of Rai (2002: 49), the nation-state can be characterised by the following four attributes: Firstly, territory; secondly, population; thirdly, a government being able to have jurisdiction over territory and population and finally recognition from other states. A nation-state is therefore a territorial entity in control of several functions over a population being seen as authority from other states.1 It is an open question in the field of political sciences as well as other social science disciplines, whether the nation state is loosing power. Globalization is said to be one major cause of this attack on the state (Van Creveld, 1999) and can be defined as:
A historical process involving a fundamental shift or transformation in the spatial scale of human social organization that links distant communities and expands the reach of power relations across regions continents.(Baylis et al.2008: 19)2
Globalization is causing networks, which are not national or international, but transnational and global (Mann, 1997). The inherent processes can be either economic, cultural or social - it is not their content which counts but more their extent. I will look at the degree to which these networks are expanding in the cause of globalization and the way they are possibly changing the nation-state.3
Van Creveld announced the demise of the nation-state (1999) stating that global and transnational forces are becoming more and more important driving the nation-state into non-existence.4 This radical argument was formulated by Michael Mann in a ‘softer form’(1997). He sees four globalization-forces causing a decline of the nation- state: global capitalism, global problems, global civil society and the emergence of a global state. I will focus on the first three points in the next three paragraphs in order to analyse the implications of globalization for the nation-state starting with the global capitalism.
Liberal capitalism as a form of economic systems is indisputably dominant on a global scale (Fukuyama, 1992). Its final breakthrough was possible due to modern information technology and eventually after the Cold War with its expansion towards the East.5 Strong evidence for the enormous degree of transnationalization can be found in the financial markets. As the current crisis shows, problems in the financial industry of America are having severe implications for the global banking industry.6 The ‘fall’ of Lehman Brothers caused breakdowns in all major financial indices. Not only them, but also the businesses of other banks were affected. It is the dispersing ideology of capitalism also causing the spread of international corporations. Multinationality is the most siginificant feature of bank-organization nowadays (Datamonitor, 2009). Furthermore, multinational firms dominate not only financial corporations, but many other industries. Laws and regulation of the economic sphere tend to become transnational as well: IMF, WTO and the World Bank, for example, are trying to control their spheres of influence on a global level (Went, 2004: 345)- although very soft in most instances. This development will even speed up, if a ‘global financial regulation’ is created, as George Soros would like it to be (Haass/Litan, 2004). Altogether, power in this way is shifting away from the nation state to global corporations and institutions: the economy is no longer only in the hands of the nation-state, but the ‘rules of the game’ are partly made by non-state actors. Nonetheless, about 70% of production is still for the domestic market - in the EU the quota lies at 73% (Eurostat, 2009). The same is true for investments (Krugman, 1994) and migration not reaching “important levels diminish the never existing influence of the nation-state. I will examine this no further, however.
According to the definition of Rai (2002: 49), the nation-state can be characterised by the following four attributes: Firstly, territory; secondly, population; thirdly, a government being able to have jurisdiction over territory and population and finally recognition from other states. A nation-state is therefore a territorial entity in control of several functions over a population being seen as authority from other states.1 It is an open question in the field of political sciences as well as other social science disciplines, whether the nation state is loosing power. Globalization is said to be one major cause of this attack on the state (Van Creveld, 1999) and can be defined as:
A historical process involving a fundamental shift or transformation in the spatial scale of human social organization that links distant communities and expands the reach of power relations across regions continents.(Baylis et al.2008: 19)2
Globalization is causing networks, which are not national or international, but transnational and global (Mann, 1997). The inherent processes can be either economic, cultural or social - it is not their content which counts but more their extent. I will look at the degree to which these networks are expanding in the cause of globalization and the way they are possibly changing the nation-state.3
Van Creveld announced the demise of the nation-state (1999) stating that global and transnational forces are becoming more and more important driving the nation-state into non-existence.4 This radical argument was formulated by Michael Mann in a ‘softer form’(1997). He sees four globalization-forces causing a decline of the nation- state: global capitalism, global problems, global civil society and the emergence of a global state. I will focus on the first three points in the next three paragraphs in order to analyse the implications of globalization for the nation-state starting with the global capitalism.
Liberal capitalism as a form of economic systems is indisputably dominant on a global scale (Fukuyama, 1992). Its final breakthrough was possible due to modern information technology and eventually after the Cold War with its expansion towards the East.5 Strong evidence for the enormous degree of transnationalization can be found in the financial markets. As the current crisis shows, problems in the financial industry of America are having severe implications for the global banking industry.6 The ‘fall’ of Lehman Brothers caused breakdowns in all major financial indices. Not only them, but also the businesses of other banks were affected. It is the dispersing ideology of capitalism also causing the spread of international corporations. Multinationality is the most siginificant feature of bank-organization nowadays (Datamonitor, 2009). Furthermore, multinational firms dominate not only financial corporations, but many other industries. Laws and regulation of the economic sphere tend to become transnational as well: IMF, WTO and the World Bank, for example, are trying to control their spheres of influence on a global level (Went, 2004: 345)- although very soft in most instances. This development will even speed up, if a ‘global financial regulation’ is created, as George Soros would like it to be (Haass/Litan, 2004). Altogether, power in this way is shifting away from the nation state to global corporations and institutions: the economy is no longer only in the hands of the nation-state, but the ‘rules of the game’ are partly made by non-state actors. Nonetheless, about 70% of production is still for the domestic market - in the EU the quota lies at 73% (Eurostat, 2009). The same is true for investments (Krugman, 1994) and migration not reaching “important levels diminish the never existing influence of the nation-state. I will examine this no further, however.
Answered by
0
fjchxhcufuf mvufufufv ydgdh
Attachments:
Similar questions