Globalization as a Mercy in International Relations - Assignment Example

Scholars are yet to agree on a ubiquitous definition. Based on experience, the term globalization is used 'both in the descriptive and normative sense' (Mrak, 2000, p. 3). Globalization is presumed to be the process of integration of markets and the intensification of the interdependence of production in the descriptive phenomenon. Normatively, globalization is presumed to be a process where there is the existence of borderless trading and foreign investment. The effects of globalization do vary based on geographical, cultural, political, social, economic, and location factors which determine whether it is perceived as an opportunity or a setback (Loyola Institute, 2007). Nonetheless, a greater percentage of scholars argue that globalization has led to increased development due to the free market. For some of them, globalization has been accompanied by several challenges.

The nature of the relationship between markets and nations has completely changed with the onset of globalization. Numerous debates on globalization have emerged and one of the major topics of these debates is the issue of states' sovereignty. Many theorists of globalization have predicted that the increasing force of global markets is likely to undermine state sovereignty (Bertucci & Alberti, 2003, p. 9). Oji & Ozioko (2011) argue that globalization reduced the direct influence of states to control their economies. States are currently being controlled by other international bodies such as international human rights, World Trade Organizations, World Bank, and other private multinational corporations (Sigmarsson, 2008, p. 9). These bodies have formed to set rules that states should abide by. While some believe that states' functionality will be completely ruined, others do believe in their ability to adjust to the effects of globalization. Loss of state sovereignty is one of the effects of globalization and for many, it is a disadvantage since it results to over-dependence and control of the world market by larger economies. As the concept of globalization on sovereignty takes center stage, some scholars have focused on the role of states in shaping their markets (Riain, 2000, p.187).

According to Riain (2000), states, markets, and society are intertwined in three different but related ways. Firstly, states are embedded into the markets through production processes and the hierarchy of global trade (Riain, 2000, p. 189). According to Wallerstein (1984), some states are stronger than others to an extent of creating their enterprises or quasi-monopolies while preventing others from benefiting from the same. The second instance of states, markets, and society is embedded in the fact that stronger states have power struggles on who controls the global economy (Riain, 2000). This indicates that states play a critical role in controlling trading and markets, and how the relationship between these states matters. States play a key role in providing a good working environment for both markets and societies. According to Bertucci & Alberti (2003) states promote social dialogues at the subnational, national, and international levels; establish and maintain mechanisms for mediating disputes, mitigation of conflicts, and reconciliation of rival cultures in modern societies" (p. 14). Therefore, states are necessary in creating a good ground for working irrespective of the presence of globalization. States are also the major players in building markets. Riain (2000) highlights the fact that states are the key players in the construction of markets because they are responsible for the formulation of rules, the creation of new market players, and coming up with strategies. Even though many scholars such as Schaeffer (2003) have argued that globalization is inevitable, the rules formulated to control trade can act as a control mechanism for globalization forces. The rules formulated will also determine whether the individuals of a state will benefit from globalization. Notably, states and markets should not be perceived as two forces opposing each other. Bertucci & Alberti (2003) argue that it is wrong to perceive that markets should come in place of state or vice versa. Nonetheless, markets can expand if the state is effective in providing appropriate rules of operation and performing its task as an arbitrator among the local market players and those from across the borders.