There are three strands of analysis on globalization: what does globalization mean for the nation state, what is the status of state security in the face of a global, borderless world, and what are the normative implications of globalization for weaker states? This paper will discuss the definition of globalization and the extent to which it exists in the modern world, and then address each concern in turn.
Globalization involves the cross-border flow of goods, services, money, people, information and culture. A truly globalized international system must involve multicontinental distances, and networks of connections and multiple relationships, not single linkages. For example, subcontinental or bilateral trade agreements are not indicative of globalization, nor are regional blocs of integration and exchange such as the European Union (Keohane and Nye).
Scholars disagree about what increased globalization means for the autonomous, sovereign system of states that has characterized the international system since the peace of Westphalia in 1648.
- Some say that the state is in decline
o Susan Strange: claims that state authority is declining relative to the growing strength of the market. Weak states are failing, and strong states are losing authority to labor and ultimately to financial markets.
- some say that the state will be constrained yet still sovereign
o Hirst and Thompson claim that states will survive despite globalization, even if the economic situation constrains their decision options. Financial flows, for example, may constrain their options, but states will still make the ultimate call
- some say that the state will retain full sovereignty
o neorealists: states can close borders and pursue unilateral, protected economic policy if they choose
o Peter Evans: greater reliance and interdependence in trade leads to increased role for the state, rather than a diminished one
o States ultimately still control their borders and who and what has territorial access. This is not changing and in fact, immigration debates are as heated as ever.
Globalization proponents point to decreased militarization as well as economic liberalization to show that traditional state territorialism and security concerns have been transcended by globalization.
Skeptics counter:
- Andreas: states have merely shifted emphasis toward policing borders to keep hostile transnational actors at bay. Especially lately, TSA has become a major, visible reminder that states are still greatly concerned about who enters the state
- the extent of modern economic integration is not new, novel, or at the highest level in world history. (Rodrick)
- state sovereignty is an institution that is based on more than economic integration. It is an intersubjectively agreed upon institution that a community of states have agreed to abide by, and the degree of interdependence will not singlehandedly render this institution defunct or illegitimate (Ruggie, Hurd, Evans)
- If globalization were truly the ordering principle of the world order, we would see more policy convergence. (although it is hard to disentangle from parallel interests or emulation).
- There is a counter globalization force that promotes divergence: distinctive national values, different political institutions and the legacies of past politics.
While economic integration and interdependence increases, the state retains full sovereignty over the economic privileges and policies that apply within the state.
- As can be seen in the economic failure of major financial institutions and corporations just this year, the state plays a fundamental role in sustaining healthy markets. The state could choose to wield its economic control to vastly different ends than the liberal market environment we see today, and the economic situation would change remarkably.
- The USA has separate trade agreements with a number of different states and negotiates and renegotiates them regularly. It is a state centric policy and process.
- Waltz: states are used to making rational decisions in the face of systemic constraints such as the balance of power and anarchy
It is also incumbent upon a responsible world leader to consider the consequences of globalization upon the less powerful. This is the major normative concern with globalization.
- Critics claim that Globalization has a negative, structural effect on the indigenous, developing, and non-western regions of the world.
- Amartya Sen carefully argued that globalization is not synonymous with Westernization, necessarily; however, that has tended to be the case in world history, and relationships of exploitation, colonization, and resultant underdevelopment abound.
Therefore, policymakers must be careful in allowing market mechanisms to have free reign and must make normative determinations as to the impact of its policies on the less powerful.
No comments:
Post a Comment