The Relationship Between Globalization and the State - Term Paper Example

 What is the relationship between globalisation and the state from a theoretical perspective? 1. Introduction The potential of the states to promote their interests as members of the international community are often limited. In the past, the military power of a state has been considered as a key means for securing its position, both in terms of geography and in terms of economy. Since the appearance of globalization, as a political and economic trend, the role of the state has been highly changed. The superiority of the state, even in regard to its own interests, has been harmed while the activities of global networks have been highly promoted. Initially, globalization seemed to be supportive towards the economic and social development of states; however, through the years the actual role of globalization has been revealed. Globalization has been introduced for supporting the interests of specific groups of people, of rich, a mission that it is aligned with the principles of neo-liberalism. The relationship between globalization and the state from a theoretical perspective is explained in this paper. Emphasis is given to neo-liberalism, a theory that it is closely related to globalization as analyzed below. The literature review developed for this study has revealed that globalization has contributed in the limitation of state’s powers and this activity has been based on the rules of neo-liberalism. The chances for the states to recover their powers seem to be limited and they are depended on the ability of governments to control the expansion of neo-liberalism worldwide. 2. Globalization and the state 2.1 Globalization as a concept Globalization has been described as a process ‘of double polarization, of cultural fragmentation and of formation of transnational networks’ (Friedman 2003, p.17). In its common form, globalization can be characterized as an unfair political and economic framework. R.Keohane and J.Nye claimed that globalization, as opposed to de-globalization, is the activity that aims to promote globalism (Westerfield and Abbink 2004, p.181). Globalism is a concept reflecting a world which is characterized by global networks established in countries with different cultural, political and economic characteristics (Westerfield and Abbink 2004). These networks aim to support the exchange of culture and the free movement of people, goods and capital worldwide (Westerfield and Abbink 2004). According to its supporters, globalization can highly benefit economies worldwide since it supports ‘trade liberalization, capital-labour mobility and exchange of information’ (Basu 2008, p.1). However, the relevant schemes are organized in such way that finally poor and people of low income are excluded from any benefit (Basu 2008). In this context, it can be said that globalization addresses the interests of a specific social group, the rich; the latter are the main beneficiaries of globalization’s benefits (Basu 2008). A clear example of the above case is the following: under the influence of globalization the concept of transnationalism has been promoted worldwide (Friedman 2003). Transnationalism is based on the elimination, or the limitation, of national identity and the creation of populations that represent different cultural and social ethics (Friedman 2003). However, such plans have led to the radical increase of violence worldwide (Friedman 2003), a fact that shows the inability of globalization to serve national interests and its close relation to personal interests, meaning the interests of groups of people. In other words, globalization is highly involved in activities that should be, normally, monitored and initiated by the state and not by global networks, i.e. groups of individuals who support the expansion of globalization. The relationship between globalization and the state is analytically explained in section 2.3.2 using the neo-liberalism approach. 2.2 Which are the key characteristics and the role of state? Different criteria have been used in the literature for describing the state. A definition that shows the key aspects of the state could define state as ‘a human community that claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory’ (Jessop 2013, p.4). In the context of the general state theory, state has three critical characteristics: ‘territory, population and apparatus’ (Jessop 2013, p.4). Through a different approach, state can be characterized as a network of units that are placed in an hierarchy and which have a series of powers in regard to economic, political and social decisions (Hobson 2000). The last definition emphasizes on the state’s decision-making and enforcement powers; these powers can be developed though only if the state is defined in terms of its territory and population. The elements of the state, as explained above, indicate the role of state as a member of the international community. 2.3 The relationship between globalization and the state – theoretical perspectives 2.3.1 Theories available for explaining the relationship between globalization and the state The relationship between globalization and the state could be explored using three theoretical approaches: liberalism, realism and Marxism. The first of these approaches, liberalism, is based on ‘the recognition of equal status, as it is secured through privatization’ (Kelly 2005, p.3). According to Garry (1992) the key elements of liberalism are two: ‘democracy and individual freedom’ (p.41). It is not explained though which are the criteria for ensuring that the freedom of all individuals will be equally supported and whether democracy involves in the initiatives taken by people in all social classes or not. American political framework is the best example of liberalism in practice (Devitt 1997). Liberalism, as a concept, could be valuable for showing and analyzing the relationship between globalization and state. Indeed, liberalism is based on the promotion of privatization and democracy as reflected in free trade and the free movements of goods. These practices are also vital part of globalization verifying the close relationship between liberalism and globalization. Particular emphasis should be given to a specific form of liberalism, the neo-liberalism which is better aligned to the rules of globalization. Neoliberalism has been described as ‘a business agenda, or, else, a free-trade agenda’ (Clarke 2003, p.204). Moreover, neo-liberalism focuses on the elimination of the powers of state over its own market (Clarke 2003). The second theoretical approach, realism, is based on the view that ‘material objects can exist externally to us’ (Devitt 1997, p.13). This means that individuals are not able to control all physical objects around them (Devitt 1997). Realism could not be used for explaining the relationship between globalization and state for the following reason: realism highlights only the existence of physical objects out of individuals’ mental control and do not requires democracy or privatization, as liberalism. Therefore, realism is not of any value for understanding globalization. The last theoretical approach, Marxism, promotes the idea that political decisions are depended on economic performance (Wright, Levine and Sober 1992); the latter can be differentiated according to the means of production employed in each society (Wright, Levine and Sober 1992). Thus, from a Marxist perspective those who have the control of the production process have also the control of a country’s political system (Wright, Levine and Sober 1992). Marxism, as explained above, cannot be used for explaining the relationship between globalization and state since Marxism emphasizes on the rights of workers, who should have a key role in critical political decisions, while globalization serves the interests of people in upper social classes, a perspective that it is clearly opposed with Marxism’s principles. 2.3.2 Neo-liberalism and its role in explaining the relationship between globalization and the state Neo-liberalism, as also explained earlier, focuses on free trade and the free movement of people and capital. Through these practices, neo-liberalism helps in the promotion of globalization in all countries, at the level that these practices have specific characteristics and criteria, which are not alternated in regard to each country’s political and social characteristics (Compton 2005). The above practices have been highly used in USA, especially in 1990s; since then, the efforts for the promotion of neo-liberalism have been intensive (Rapley 2004). However, in 1997-1998 the recession in Asia revealed the potentials of globalization to harm the welfare of countries (Rapley 2004). In addition, through the years different practices were used in rich countries, compared to poor countries, in regard to economic and social development (Dicken 2011). This strategy has led to the further increase of inequalities between countries internationally (Dicken 2011). According to Dicken (2011) globalization, as a concept, is better explained through a neo-liberal approach which highlights the value of free markets (Dicken 2011). In addition, globalization started its expansion globally mostly after the end of the Cold War, a period that it has been also related to the appearance of neo-liberalism (Dicken 2011). Today, the power of globalization in influencing the political and economic decisions of governments is reflected in the following phenomenon: transnational corporations have become the key players of the international market, having established their units in several countries worldwide (Dicken 2011). However, these corporations are based on rules that are aligned to those of neo-liberalism, i.e. the free movement of goods and capital worldwide (Dicken 2011). Thus, the transnational corporations can be considered as the best examples of the powers of globalization over states, as these powers are based on the principles of neo-liberalism. Teschke (2008) notes that it was the event of September the 11th that set the basis for the transformation of USA, to a global state (Teschke 2008). It is explained that up to then, i.e. up to the September the 11th, USA has been the example of a state promoting internationalization (Teschke 2008). The transformation from international state to global state, as in the case of USA, should be considered as the major sign of the superiority of globalization over states. Clarke (2003) also supports that the role of USA in the promotion of globalization, through neo-liberalism, has been critical. It is explained that the US government has highly emphasized on the flexibility of labour and the decrease, as possible, of the involvement of the state in the market’s rules (Clarke 2003). The recession of 2008 that caused strong financial turbulences worldwide indicates the level at which globalization can threaten global security and stability in all its aspects (Dicken 2011). The expansion of poverty and social inequalities that followed the recession of 2008 also highlights the need for the replacement of neo-liberalism as a theoretical concept for developing politics worldwide (Dicken 2011). 3. Conclusion The relationship between globalization and the modern state can be quite complex. Because of the important social and economic differences of states worldwide the promotion of common practices for handling key political and economic issues worldwide would be quite risky, a fact that seems to be ignored by the supporters of globalization. In general, it seems that the rapid development of globalization has been achieved mostly because of the involvement of neo-liberalism. The specific concept has been used by USA governments aiming to secure the country’s superiority in the context of the international community. This plan is verified through the following fact: up to September the 11th US has been a country based on the concept of the internationalization of the state (Teschke 2008). After the above event the transformation of US state to a global state has started (Teschke 2008). The threats and the risks of this strategy have been revealed, quite clearly, through the recession of 2008 (Dicken 2011). It was then that the idea of the potential need for replacement of neo-liberalism, as the theoretical approach that supports globalization, first appeared. The problem is that up today no decisive efforts have been made towards such direction; the strong interests that are promoted through neo-liberalism, i.e. the interests of the world’s rich people, are likely to be the key reason for the delay involved in the identification of a new theoretical approach for designing political plans in countries worldwide. References Basu, R., 2008. Globalization and the Changing Role of the State. Berkshire: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd. Clarke, J., 2003. Turning inside out?: Globalization, neo-liberalism and welfare states. Anthropologica, 45(2), pp. 201–214. Compton, D., 2005. Neoliberal Democratization and New Authoritarianism. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Devitt, M., 1997. Realism and Truth. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Dicken, P., 2011.Mapping the Changing Contours of the World Economy, 6th ed. London: SAGE Friedman, J., 2003. Globalization, the State, and Violence. Lanham: Rowman Altamira. Garry, P., 1992. Liberalism and American Identity. Kent: Kent State University Press. Hobson, J., 2000. The State and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jessop, B., 2013. State Power. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Kelly, P., 2005. Liberalism. London: Polity. Rapley, J., 2004. Globalization and Inequality: Neoliberalism's Downward Spiral. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Teschke, Benno (2008) Marxism. In: The Oxford Handbook of International Relations. The Oxford Handbooks of Political Science . Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 163-187. Docklands Library Main Collection 327 OXF Wright, E., Levine, A. and Sober, E., 1992. Reconstructing Marxism: Essays on Explanation and the Theory of History. London: Verso. Bibliography Arnold, S., 2009. Imposing Values: Liberalism and Regulation: Liberalism and Regulation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Browner, C. and Sargent, C., 2011. Reproduction, Globalization, and the State: New Theoretical and Ethnographic Perspectives. Durham: Duke University Press. Cohen, R., Hilpinen, R. and Qiu, R., 1996. Realism and Anti-Realism in the Philosophy of Science. New York: Springer. Harvey, D., 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Karagiannis, N. and Madjd-Sadjadi, Z., 2007. Modern State Intervention in the Era of Globalisation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Lechner, F., 2009. Globalization: The Making of World Society. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Leitner, H., Peck, J. and Sheppard, E., 2007. Contesting Neoliberalism: Urban Frontiers. New York: Guilford Press. Rigby, S., 1998. Marxism and History: A Critical Introduction. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Wegner, G., 2008. Political Failure by Agreement: Learning Liberalism and the Welfare State. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Wells, G., Shuey, R. and Kiely, R., 2001. Globalization. New York: Nova Publishers. Read More