This essay declares that globalization increases the potential mobility of financial capital, real investments, goods and services, and to a more limited extent, highly skilled labour. He argued that consequently, mobile economic actors are better able to avoid undesirable state regulations, or to profit from ones that are more advantageous. Thus, he said that “to the extent that countries depend on these actors, or on the resources they control, they are forced into a competition for locational advantage that has all the characteristics of a Prisoner’s Dilemma game, and that reduces the capacity of the territorial state to shape the conditions under which capitalist economies must operate.
This paper makes a conclusion that the relations between them is complex, hence one could not be taken lightly hence it could not simply be said the globalization promotes democracy. As we have seen globalization could restrict nations dream for autonomy as democratic institutions. This must not be surprising as what could be observed of democracies returning to authoritarianism. What then is the relation between the two is governing by old contradictions between economic and politics. Since they politics and economics belong to different fields, so are globalization and democratization. These could not just be put together as one to influencing the other without really conducting further studies