One of the key debates about economic globalization has been over the degree to which such a process may have undermined national economies and the power and sovereignty of nation-states. Some writers have seriously challenged the view that nation-states have lost significant power over economic decision-making.
As mentioned previously, globalization is inevitable and irreversible. As a consequence, the common trend among the countries is that they have no choice but to integrate with the others. Several countries such as China, Japan in the past did not choose to interact with the world both economically and politically; yet recently they are very pro-active nations to trade all over the world in this globalized scenario. Most of the nation-states open their market to foster the importing and exporting, prospering their own economy and profit. However, by achieving this, they lose some control of sovereignty and borders for they create easier conditions for the others to enter their land. It also means that ‘their degree of sovereignty, always tentative, is being further reduced’ (Olds et al. 1999, p. 204).
Moreover, globalization makes it easier for people to travel to other territories. Tourism industry is becoming a source of profits for many countries to promote their economy. As a result, the state government tends to ease the policies to appeal more tourists to their land. Therefore, the state borders are less strictly controlled due to globalization as Scholte (1997, pp. 427-452) suggests that globalization can refer to an increase in: (a) cross-border relations (or internationalization); (b) open-border relations (or liberalization); and (c) trans-border relations (or relative uncoupling of social relations from territorial frameworks). Nevertheless, the more chances for the others to enter one’s state territory, the more danger it have to face because of the invisible threat of terrorism and enemies’ attack. With the notion that they share the profits and advantages among each others in the context of globalization, they thus somewhat share their own sovereignty as it is claimed that:
…We could be witnessing the development of ‘neo-medieval’ form of world political order in which nation-states share sovereignty with both subnational or state authorities and supranational ones.
(Held el at. 1999, cited in Spencer & Wollman 2002, p. 161)
Those issues which have just been discussed above can be recognized and observed without difficulty or doubt. In addition to those, there is something more intangible that have been happening around the world and been taken under consideration with lots of controversy. That is the consequences from globalized industries such as air pollution, water pollution, ‘green house effect’, the hole in the ozone layer with harmful radiation beaming down on human more and more everyday. No nations take responsibility for the actions, partly because they are resulted from globalization. The more important thing is that every nation-state has to share the consequences for there is absolutely no border of pollution, of radiation. The idea is supported by Germov & Poole (2007, p. 355) that ‘the risks faced by contemporary societies are global in scope and outside the control of state agents: pollution is borderless, radiation ignores national boundaries’.
For this result, it can be perceived that globalization constrains the borders and territorial boundaries of the states:
…global processes and institutions are invading the nation-state and as a consequence dismantling the conceptual and territorial boundaries that have traditionally sustained the theory and practice of state sovereignty.
(Camilleri & Falk 1992, p. 98)
Immigration constitutes a huge factor in the range of globalization effects as well. The movement of population makes it more difficult to assume that the identity of a certain state is as fixed and permanent as it used to be because ‘globalization itself is undermining nationalism through processes that produce more fluid, fragmented or hybrid identities’ (Spencer & Wollman, p. 158). There exists a confusion to specify someone’s identity in this globalized scale; especially that person is an immigrant. For example, a person, whose mother is a Vietnamese and father is a Chinese Vietnamese, was born in Vietnam; then his family moved to Australia since he was two years old. Since that time, he has spoken fluently three languages of Vietnamese, English and Mandarin. So there is a big question of whether his identity is Vietnamese, Chinese, or Australian. Many countries nowadays have turned into multiculturalism such as United States, Canada and especially Australia. Therefore, they bear a complexity of identities. For Pietersee (1995, cited in Spencer & Wollman 2002, p. 166), hybridity is a major feature of globalization and
Identity has become much more fluid in the contemporary world; that people not only have multiple identities, but that they have more of a mélange, a mixture of identities, often referred to as the spread of hybridity. In addition, these new kinds of identity are not fixed or permanent; rather they are fluid and open to change.
(ibid, p. 162)
Although specification of identity is not simple, there should be an attempt among emigrants to emerge themselves into the receiving country’s society as a citizen of the state, experiencing a sense of its identification. Citizenship anyhow gives a sense of belonging ad identity; therefore diasporas should consider themselves as transnational communities, which also means that they socialize and interact with the receiving country’s society as with their own community. However, ‘not all diasporas are examples of transnational communities, since not all ‘develop significant social and symbolic ties to the receiving country’ (Faist 1998, p. 222, see Spencer & Wollman 2002, p. 163). Because of this, diasporas seem to self-isolate from the identification of the receiving country. This also points out that globalization makes identity more fluid, fragmented and hybrid. That people have more than one identity links to the notion that ‘identification becomes deterritorialized, no longer linked to one particular nation-state. Citizenship itself undergoes a transformation’ (ibid, p. 164).
Moreover, ethnic identity is perceived as ‘a loss of something’, ‘in-betweenness’ by transnational people (Olds et al 1999, p. 232). They do not feel comfortable with the identity of either their own country or their receiving country. Lily Kong’s work (cited in Olds et al 1999, pp. 219-236) indicates that a sense of perplexity confronts those transmigrants, who moved from China to Singapore for instance. Although both nation-states are in the same Asian region, bearing the same origin of Chinese culture, people from each state tend to behave and communicate in their own way. Some of Chinese living in Singapore articulated that they developed a hybridity of identity. They claimed that although Singapore and China are from the same root, Singapore is more ‘Westernized’ while China is more traditionally Chinese. Therefore, when living in Singapore, they struggled for their own identity as they had to encounter a Westernized life in a Chinese context, like a mixture of culture. Hence, they felt ‘a loss of something’ for both identities of both countries. Spencer & Wollman (2002, p. 164) note that ‘diasporas are seen as being advantageously placed to benefit from globalization, both in terms of trade and intellectual life’; nevertheless, they could not actually benefit from identity, or worse, they are losing a part of their identity. Olds et al (1999, p. 224), reporting in Lily Kong’s study, conclude that
As contexts and conditions change with transmigrations, people re-evaluate and cope with their changing circumstances in a global world by constantly shifting their conceptions of ethnicity, and indeed, simultaneously adopting quite contradictory conceptions of ethnic identity.
In short, due to globalization, the states confront the fact that identity is more fluid, fragmented and hybrid.
In conclusion, ‘the local and global seem to interact in ways that can produce quite contradictory effects in different circumstances’ (Spencer & Wollman 2002, p. 181). As they suggest, the nation-states perform differently from what they used to do in the context of globalization. They are losing a part of power, sovereignty, identities rather than gaining more. They can do nothing to this global trend but accept it and incorporate with the world. Economic movements are advantageous to them on one hand; on the other, they share their power and sovereignty. Globalization creates chances for migration which has been accommodating multiple or even hybrid identities within one nation-state. All in all, globalization should be seen as both an opportunity and a threat to the states for it may make the state stronger to some extent, yet diminish its part of power.
Bibliography:
-Bauman, Z 1998, Globalization: The Human Consequences, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
-Burgmann, V 2003, Power, profit & protest: Australian social movements and globalization, Allen & Unwin, NSW.
- Camilleri, JA & Falk, J 1992, The end of Sovereignty? The Politics of a Shrinking and Fragmenting World, Edward Elgar, UK
-Cheater, A 1999, The Anthropology of Power, Empowerment and disempowerment in Changing Structures, Routledge, London.
-Conley, T 2002, ‘The state of globalization and globalization of the state’, Australian Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 56, No. 3.
-Edwards, R & Usher, R 2000, Globalization and Pedagogy: Space, place and identity, Routledge, London.
- French, H 2000, Vanishing Borders: Protecting the Planet in the Age of Globalization, World Watch, US
-Germov, J & Poole, M 2007, Public Sociology: An introduction to Australian Society, Allen & Unwin, NSW.
-Hannerz, U 1996, Transnational Connections: Cultures, Peope, Places, Routledge, London.
-Kearney, M 1995, ‘The local and the global: the anthropology of globalization and transnationalism’, Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 24, pp. 547-565.
-Olds, K Dicken, P Kelly, PF Kong, L Yeung, HW 1999 (eds), Globalization and the Asia-Pacific: Contested Territories, Routledge, London.
-Ritzer, G 2004, The globalization of Nothing, Pine Forge Press, California.
-Robertson, R 1992, Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture, SAGE, London.
- Sassen, S 1996, Losing Control? Sovereignty in an Age of Globalization, Columbia University Press, NY
-Savage, M Bagnall, G & Longhurst, B 2005, Globalization and Belonging, SAGE, London.
-Scholte, J 1997, ‘Global capitalism and the state’, International Affairs, Vol. 73, No. 3, pp. 427-52.
-Spencer, P & Wollman, H 2002, Nationalism A Critical Introduction, London, SAGE, pp. 157 – 184.
-Stallings, B 1995, Global Change, Regional Response: The New International Context of Development, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
-Storper, MJ 1997, ‘Territories, flows, and hierarchies in the global economy’, in Cox, KR (ed.), Spaces of Globalization: Reasserting the Power of the Local, Guilford, NY.
-Walters, M 2001, Globalization, 2nd edn, Routledge, London.
