How Far Is Globalization an Unstoppable Force That Will Destroy Or Marginalize the Nation-state - Essay Example

How far is globalization an unstoppable force that will destroy or marginalize the nation Discuss with reference to the key perspectives on globalization Globalization is a phenomenon which influences the social, economical, cultural, and political structure in our present-day world. This issue has started a debate on its influence, causes and consequences. It implies changes and continuities that can have both positive and negative impacts on daily life. One of the aspects that demonstrate the importance of analysing globalization is its positive or negative effect on the nation-states. In order to answer whether globalization is an unstoppable force that will destroy or marginalize the nation-state, it is necessary to analyse the key perspectives on globalization and its antecedents in history. Scholte (2000) distinguishes five general conceptions: globalization as internationalization, globalization as liberalization, globalization as universalization, globalization as westernization, and globalization as respatialization. This author considers that the first four definitions are redundant, while only the last notion gives globalization a new and distinctive meaning, and it identifies an important contemporary historical development. The definition of globalization as a respatialization of social life involves the spread of supraterritorial connections between people. In this light, Scholte deals with the claim that globalization is causing “a general retreat” or even a “demise” of the state. On the contrary, states have remained a key locus of regulation and have thus far shown no sign of dissolution in the foreseeable future. However, globalization has prompted changes in several significant features of the state, for instance, in terms of the constituencies that it serves and the policy tools that it uses (Scholte 2000, p. 4). Globalization in history The debate in globalization begins with its history. Is globalization a recent development, or has it begun centuries ago? Knowing the origins of globalization enables to foresee its paths, and enhance decision-making in the future. MacGillivray (2006) offers a historical perspective of globalization and identifies five decades of global “contractions”: 1. The Iberian carve-up (1490-1500). Spain and Portugal discovered the shape and size of the Earth, and they started a global competition over land, nation-states and civilizations. 2. The Britannic meridian (1880-1890). In this decade of imperial British domination, the world was divided into meridian sections for navigation purposes, which allow trips around the world and an incipient globalization thanks to the telegraph and steamships. 3. Sputnik world (1955-1965). The first flight of the Sputnik was a crucial moment for the space race. During this period, the Berlin Wall was built, and it marked a pause in globalization for one part of the world. 4. The global supply-chain (1995-2005). This decade defined the rise of giant multinational corporations. The internet and mobile telephones prompted communication around the world. 5. Thermo-globalization. Since it has not yet occurred, MacGillivray does not include a date, but predicts that it is not far off. The global warming will create a line of intolerable temperature in the world, and it would cause a decline in the global market. The intentions of globalizing the world have belonged to different historical periods. The world great religions helped establish connections between many societies, and they have extended and communicated their beliefs and practices beyond their places of origins, especially Islam and Christianity, and they have tried to implant their faith worldwide. Other previous attempts to globalize were the colonization of America, Africa and Asia by European nations. This colonization allows the growth of international trade (16th to 19th century), the spread of liberal democracy and European political ideas (17th to 20th century), the industrialization and the emergence of capitalism, the Nazism (1939-1945), the spread of communism, and the social movements of the late 20th century, such as feminism and the “green” movement. These historical phenomena have influenced the nation-states. During the feudalism in the Middle Ages, the state power was fragmented. After capitalism, the nation-states developed, and they changed in the course of colonization, de-colonization and the emergence of different government types. In this order of ideas, the nation-states will not remain indifferent to the shifts and challenges posed by globalization. Key perspectives on globalization Globalization can be interpreted from the globalist, transformational, or internationalist perspective. Globalists see globalization as an inevitable and irreversible process, in which the local and national cultures, economies and policies are subsumed into global flow networks. Since social processes function on global scale, state sovereignty and the very concept of nation-based citizenship are being challenged. The globalist perspective may be optimist or pessimist. The optimists’ view defends the idea of a global village. This notion implies a coming together in a physical or virtual space (Kapoor 1998). Nowadays, by means of Internet and television, the boundaries and distances are not impediments to establish contacts between people in different countries or continents, and to know what happens in the world almost simultaneously. This form of communication permits the exchange of values, beliefs and ways of thinking, i.e. a meeting of cultures. In a positive scenario of the future global village, Kapoor (1998) describes a predominantly democratic society, where the extensive use of communication technologies –e.g. internet– is part of the public infrastructure, and it allows public debates and people’s participation in decision-making. Interest groups and minorities may intervene in a global conversation. Computer literacy enables the access to global communication networks for nearly all individuals, and consumer freedom is promoted. With this design of global politics and economics, power in society is broadly shared between the state, business corporations and civil society. The last refers to a wide array of scientific, religious, spiritual, educational, cultural and charitable bodies which play a crucial role not only in the lives of most individuals but also in advising and monitoring the state as well as business corporations (Kapoor 1998, p. 3). On the other hand, pessimists argue that globalization creates more inequality. Many people still live in poverty. They do not have access to internet and its benefits, and hence there is an uneven access to information. At the same time, an increased concentration in media business results, paradoxically, in the decrease of the number of owners of major media outlets (TV networks, movie studios, newspapers, magazines). Seemingly, there is a diversity of media and voices in the marketplace, but behind this appearance, the power belongs to a relatively few number of media corporations. For example, Rupert Murdoch is one of the largest media owners in the world (Hertz 2001). Through his company, News Corporations, Murdoch reaches 75% of Earth’s population. The pessimist globalist perspective denounces the cultural imperialism. The mass media have disseminated the culture of consumerism, and particularly the consumption of the products of the large Western corporations. For example, Coca-cola, McDonald’s and the TV programme Friends. Cultural imperialism is considered a cultural domination by powerful nations over weaker nations. According to the internationalist perspective, the cultural and international trade flows represent an influence that do not necessarily originate in the same place or flow in the same direction. Receivers may also be originators, since the centre or periphery are not clearly defined. Most of the economic and social activities are international, but not truly global. That is the case of the European Union countries, which usually trade between themselves. Nation-states become increasingly interdependent because of the free movement of people, goods and services. The transformationalist perspective conceives globalization as a powerful transformative force which reorganizes the space and rearticulates the economic, political, military and cultural power (Held & McGrew 1999). Globalization has an impact upon regions and nation-states. Although nation-states retain power over policy inputs, there are global institutions –e.g. United Nations– that favour an interaction between global, national, regional and local forces. Nation-states in the “risk society” Giddens (1999a, 1999b, 1999c) alerts on the effects of globalization on nation-states. A radical position argues that nations have lost most of their sovereignty and economic powers as a result of globalization. Hence, politicians can no longer influence events, and political leaders are less influential. As the hold of old nation-states weakens, local nationalism arises, and we are witnessing the revival of local cultural identities in different parts of the world. Nevertheless, Giddens (1999a) makes the following statement: Nation-states are indeed still powerful and political leaders have a large role to play in the world. Yet at the same time the nation-state is being reshaped before our eyes. National economy policy can’t be as effective as it one was. More importantly, nations have to rethink their identities now the older forms of geopolitics are becoming obsolete” (Giddens 1999, para. 31). The so-called first modernity (Beck 1999) is based on nation-state societies, in which the notion of territoriality shaped the social relations, networks and communities. The collective patterns of life, progress and controllability, full employment and exploitation of nature that were typical of this first modernity have now been undermined by five interlinked processes: globalization, individualization, gender revolution, underemployment and global risks (as ecological crisis and the crash of global financial market. The real theoretical and political challenge of the second modernity is the fact that society must respond to all these challenges simultaneously (Beck 1999, p. 5) Within the framework of risk society, the discussion about the future role of the state takes place. Nowadays, modernization is not confined to one geographical area. It is felt globally and it has consequences for tradition. In the Western countries, public institutions –as well as everyday life– are becoming opened up from the hold of tradition. At the same time, other societies that remained more traditional are becoming detraditionalised (Giddens 1999c). The concept of risk is directly bound to the concept of reflexive modernization. Risk may be defined as a systematic way of dealing with hazard and insecurities induced and introduced by modernization itself. Risks, as opposed to older dangers, are consequences which relate to the threatening force of modernization and to its globalization of doubt (Beck 1992, 21). In the present-day world, humankind has created risks and hazards with unpredictable and catastrophic consequences, such as global ecological risk, nuclear weapons, or the “meltdown” of the world economy (Giddens 1999b). These risks are intensified by globalization, and we have little historical experience for confronting them. Another risk comes from fundamentalism, a child of globalization, which responds to and utilises it (Giddens 1999c). Fundamentalist groups, in their various forms (religious, ethnic, nationalist, political), use new communication technologies extensively, and they could represent a problem, because of the possibility of violence and their rejection to cosmopolitan dialogue. Giddens states that fundamentalism poses questions to the globalizing modernity. For example: Can we live in a world where nothing is sacred? In Giddens’s opinion, we cannot, and we should develop tolerance and dialogue by means of universal ethics and values. One can say that risk society, through the dynamic of endangerment it sets in motion, undermines the borders of nation states as much as those of military alliances and economic blocs. While class societies are capable of being organized as national states, risk societies bring about ‘communities of danger’ that ultimately can only be comprised in the United Nations (Beck 1992, p. 47). Nation-states and the global economic regime The post-Second World War international economic order is characterized by the rise of intergovernmental organizations, such as the United Nations (UN), International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and World Trade Organization (WTO), among others. Multilateralism and trade liberalization appeared to fight the economic depression after the war. However, these institutions have been questioned in the pessimist view of globalization. Added to cultural imperialism, the key institutions of the new global economic regime may be considered instruments of an economic imperialism, which benefits the North, in detriment of the South, and favours a neo-colonialism. Hertz (2001) states that, in this new global economy, these institutions respond to multinational corporations, overriding the nation-states in the name of fair trade, while the role of nation-states is to provide the public goods and infrastructure needed by the business at the lowest costs, in order to protect the world’s free trade system. Corporations are assuming the traditional functions of the nation-state, because they become welfare providers (Hertz 2001). Nevertheless, Stiglitz (2003) stated that the creation of the international economic institutions was based on good ideas and intentions, but they gradually evolved to policies that did not help developing countries. He mentions the case of the Washington Consensus, “a consensus between the IMF, the World Bank and the U.S. Treasury about the ‘right’ policies for developing countries” (Stiglitz 2003). Washington Consensus policies were intended for Latin American countries, and later they were applied to other countries with different economic problems, which led to instabilities. This situation demonstrated that the nation-states cannot take one-size-fits-all solutions. A particular nation-based analysis of economic structures, strengths and weaknesses is necessary to find a right solution. Globalization, nation-state and insecurity According to Ahmed (2004), globalization weakens and fragments the nation-state, and it contributes systematically to the emergence of intra- and inter-state conflicts. The policies and the free-trade promoted by the key institutions of globalization, i.e. international institutions and agreements, have reduced the economic, national and human security for many sectors of the population, mainly in the South. The author mentions that a wide variety of global processes affects human security. For example: “the depletion of non-renewable resources; drug trafficking; human trafficking; the rapid spread of communications technology; the growth of unsanctioned capitalist markets; poverty and inequality, and the HIV/AIDS pandemic” (Ahmed 2004, p. 114). Globalization has generated political and economic instabilities and conflict between states. Therefore, the nation-state must develop its ability to respond to the global market forces. A nation-state can avoid the potential negative impact of external market forces by channelling them to the advantage of their own economies, as many states in the North have done it. Otherwise, whether states are unable to manage their economies effectively, they would be subject to the dictates to external market forces. Paradoxically, the more a country is able to exercise its sovereignty, with respect to economic and social policies, the more it may be deemed as successfully integrated in the world economy. (…) Developed economies with a strong state driving the social and economic agenda are more globalized than developing countries with a state that still has to exert its full authority over the process, irrespective whether the latter enjoys higher trade to GDP ratios, or flows of FDI. It is the capacity to determine and use the policy instruments in line with agreed policy objectives that measures the ability of the state to function in a globalized world and not any simple, or group, of indicator that may vary from time to time and from country to country (Katsiaouni 2001, p. 4). Conclusion All the authors considered in this essay acknowledge the influence of globalization in the nation-state. Although globalization is an unstoppable force, it will not destroy the nation-state. However, the changes are significant and undeniable. The possibility of a marginalization of the nation-state, due to the forces of global institutions and markets, depends on the role of each state to manage globalization and the processes involved in it, according to the social and economic objectives of a nation-state, which keeps its sovereignty. Globalization implies risks and hazards, but it can be channelled to support national objectives. To avoid the negative influence of free trade, it is important that nation-states recover the concern on people’s interest. A continuous debate on the global economic regime is essential to reinforce the role of the state. In this globalising era, nation-states not only are able to survive, but also may strengthen their national identity with an increase of hybrid identities and cosmopolitan features. References Ahmed, N.M. (2004) “The Globalization of Insecurity: How the International Economic Order Undermines Human and National Security on a World Scale”. [Electronic Version] Historia Actual Online, 5, 113-126. Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage. Beck, U. (1999) World Risk Society. Oxford: Blackwell. Giddens, A. (1999) “Globalisation”. BBC Reith Lectures. Runaway World. Retrieved January 1, 2007 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_99/week1/week1.htm Giddens, A. (1999) “Risk”. BBC Reith Lectures. Runaway World. Retrieved January 1, 2007 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_99/week2/week2.htm Giddens, A. (1999) “Tradition”. BBC Reith Lectures. Runaway World. Retrieved January 1, 2007 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_99/week3/week3.htm Held, D. & McGrew, A. (1999) Global Transformations. Oxford: Polity Press. Hertz, N. (2001) The Silent Takeover: Global Capitalism and the Death of Democracy. London: Arrow. Kapoor, R. (1998). “Creating the ‘Village’ for Global Conversations”. Global Conversations and Future Generations: Selections from the 1997 World Future Studies Federation XVth World Conference. Retrieved December 29, 2006 from http://www.wfsf.org/pub/publications/Brisbane_97/KAPOOR.pdf Katsiaouni, O. (2001) “Globalization and the State: Some Awkward Corners”. United Nations Online Network in Public Administration and Finance (UNPAN). Retrieved January 2, 2007 from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan006229.pdf MacGillivray, A. (2006) A Brief History of Globalization: The Untold Story of our Incredible Shrinking Planet. New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers. Scholte, J.A. (2000) Globalization: A Critical Introduction. London: MacMillan Press. Stiglitz, J. (2003) Globalization and its Discontents. London: W.W. Norton & Company. Read More