So, after having defined nation-state and the four concepts, stretching, intensification, interpretation and the global infrastructure, one must now look at the different perspectives of what is globalisations. There are essentially three perspectives, there are the Globalist and the Traditionalist who take opposing viewpoints, whilst the third perspective is held by the Transformationalists who take a more middle ground.
Globalists essentially see globalisation as a process, which cannot be stopped by 'westphallian' type nation-states. Globalists view globalisation as something that is a real force, seeking to produce a global social culture, sipping coke, watching Disney, wearing gap, waiting at McDonalds, and a single global economy. Thus ensuring that the effects of globalisation reach the remotest societies and in its progress reduce the constraints imposed by nation-states. The positive Globalists view this as a good thing. Where possibilities and opportunities arise, enabling societies to be 'enriched' by the phenomena of globalisation. Contrarily the pessimistic Globalists instead see those societies/cultures or corporation with the greatest power over ruling the weaker states and imposing their own ideas.
In contrast to the Globalist there is the Traditionalist, who take the view that globalisation shows no significant inclination in the depreciation of the nation states autonomy or sovereignty. The traditionalist maintain that economic and social activity is regional and historical so nation states still maintain and retain control of economic, social, cultural, political and legislative powers. They argue that globalisation is not something that is new to the world but is an effect that has a historical precedent. So what is happening today is an ongoing process of older flows and movements of economic and cultural flows. However Traditionalist do see global corporations by virtue of their power in the present day increasing the inequalities between the rich and the poor of the world.
The Transformationalist holds the third perspective on globalisation. They see the whole process as being more complex. They, unlike the Traditionalist see a significant shift, but unlike the Globalist do not see it as being inevitable. Transformationalists hold the view that nation-states retain autonomy and sovereignty but have become more fluid in regard to global multi-corporations, and the invasion of the global culture. Transformationalists see the potential for all to benefit from the effects of globalisation but also recognise that it leads to a more complicated definition of the winners and losers. These are the theories that help to explain globalisation, the emergence of global governance. Globalist and transformationalists both agree that governance is not only occurring at a national level but on a transnational level leading to an internationalised nation-state, i.e., when various governments' come together to discuss various issues affecting them. For example the G8 1988 summit when they all agreed to work together align their national legislative policies to work against drug, trafficking and organised crime. This led to the UN General Assembly declaring war on drugs, drug trafficking and associated international crime organisations. The UN Secretary General said, "Alas, no country can hope to stem the drug trade but together the world can," ((UN chronicle, 1998) (p.135 chapter 4. A globalizing the world))
This working together on an international scale can only be done if the various governments agree to co-operate internationally and install national agencies. To co-ordinate activities and to routinely work with national and regional agencies e.g. the UNDCP working with "National drug agencies, Interpol, Europol the Inter Americans Drug Abuse Control Commission and the Central American Republics Drugs Programme" (p.137 chapter 4 A globalizing world).
Evidence of internationalisation is apparent at all levels of government in the UK. Each government department deals directly with its counterpart in different nation states, or international organisations e.g. The EU and the Assemblies in Scotland and Wales. Over the years there has been an explosion of inter governmental organisations (IGO's) who work and communicate on a global level. This internationalisation of the state is sometimes not wholly in the control of national governments, nor can it be monitored.
In addition to I.G.O's there are the non -governmental organisations (NGO's). Which transcend national boundaries, societies and cultures. These are diverse organisations so ranging from Greenpeace to the Beijing Women's Forum.
Five distinct features mark the globalisation of politics and hence the partial erosion of the autonomy and sovereignty of nation-states. Firstly the "instituitionalisation of intergovernmental and transnational networks of political interaction" (p.140 chapter 4 A globalising world) i.e. recognition of informal bodies by the formal bodies and increase in communications between them.
Secondly there is the increase in organisations with power "above and below and alongside" the state e.g. the European Union, local government, the World Business Council. Then there is the universal agreement that when nation-states' heads of government meet at summit and agree upon a policy these policies are set in motion at national level and have international governmental agencies regulating and monitoring the activities. So although there is no world government there are these bodies i.e. intergovernmental and NGO's that can and do transcend nation-state boundaries stetting global standards, combating drug trafficking etc.
There is also the Transnational Civil Society who seeks to affect world policies. The Transnational Civil Societies are not all interested in world reform but perhaps in some instances more interested in ensuring that any decisions made do not affect contrarily on their own interests.
Some groups have more political power and wealth e.g. Murdoch's News Empire, Gates Microsoft, Disney's Disney empire all have more power and influence than for example the Hanwell's Resident Association who have little effective power in world governance.
All this international governance calls for a new state of rules and regulations and in some instances, these new rules and regulations are assimilated into the governance of national governments. E.g. decisions upheld by the European Court of Human Rights are legal in the UK and as such are assimilated into the UK's judicial system.
So contemporary globalisation according to the Globalists challenges the Westphalian idea of a nation-state. The INGO's, NGO's and Transnational Civil Societies with the aid of network of communications infrastructure have remodelled the nation-state. Nation-states are no longer compliant to the Westphalian concept but instead INGO's and NGO's and Transnational Civil Societies, multi-corporations, multi organisations, assemblies and parties at various levels are redefining, state, political, economic, legislative and social boundaries, some with more power than others. They all try to ensure that their views, ideology's, beliefs and agenda's are adhered to. Basically leading to a multi-layered form of governance with tentacles of power coming from several directions, regionally, globally, locally and nationally and so affecting the sovereignty and autonomy of the nation-state.
The Traditionalists see globalisation as a power control by the largest economy in the world, the US. Not that the US seeks to "govern the world but by virtue of its ability to veto or ignore international bodies and other governments. E.g. The bombing of Afghanistan, the holding of political prisoners in an American base in Cuba, withholding all human rights to these prisoners, not allowing them to be judged by their peers. The US can do this because it is a powerful economic country. It can police the world and pass judgement. Some Traditionalists would liken globalisation to not being uncontrollable but rather a US inspired world order i.e. Americanisation.
In contrast the Transformationalists recognise that there has to be some countries with more power and some with less. They stress the real power however comes from the transnational and sub-state layer i.e. 'people power' like Greenpeace. With there being a many diverse social forces using knowledge, technology, increasing interaction across countries, building stable social relations in order to attain an effective and accountable form of governance from the transnational and sub-state levels and at the same time resisting global governance imposed by the Supra-State. E.g. the "Battle of Seattle" when protestors using the Internet and other modes of communications across the world quickly formed an opposition to the WTO.
So there is the power shift from the Westphalian idea of a nation-state. The role of a national government has changed. It is not heralding the end of state autonomy and sovereignty but a change in how the state now functions.
What evidence is there for this? One form of evidence is the growth in television households. Through out the world in 1971 there was a little over 200 million, by 1985 it was approx. 450 million and by the year 2000 the figure had reached 1000 million. (Figure 2.1 global television households 1971-2000 p.50 A globalising world). However when these figures are broken up by nation-states and the total number of receivers there is a large difference between the various continents with Europe having 442 receivers per 1000 inhabitants but actually having 322 million receivers in total. Whilst Asia having 180 receivers per 1000 inhabitants but actually having 652 million receivers. Also the table shows a large disparity, with Africa and Oceana having the least amount of receivers than the rest of the world. (Table 2.2 Television receivers by region 1996 p.50 A globalising world) This affects their degree of globalisation in terms of what they view and who provides their viewing.
Here Rupert Murdoch's media empire is not likely to have a great affect on the poorest country in the world. Burkina Faso one of the poorest countries where there were only 90 thousand receivers in 1996 in comparison to China with the largest population having 393628 thousand receivers in 1996 (table 2.3 Television ownership and saturation in selected countries, 1975-96 p.51 A globalising world). But, because of the diversity in the News Co-Corporation e.g. in that he has significant media holdings in
- US Fox broadcasting network
- 22 US TV stations
- Fox news channel
- 40% controlling interest in BskyB
- 50% stake in Japans sky broadcasting digital satellite service
- 49.9% stake in India's Zee TV
- Asian Star TV satellite service and TV channels
Source Herman and McChesney, 1997 p70-2, 75 (p.59 A globalising world)
As one can see Rupert Murdoch's global empire is not only interested in distribution but also in the contents of what is distributed.
By controlling what is distributed globally i.e. The Simpsons can be seen in Burkina Faso and China. "Star Trek is boldly going to new nation-states and transcending their boundaries like no media corporation has ever achieved before!" All in all showing a significant shift towards a single cultural form of entertainment… Murdochs'.
On the other hand the Traditionalists argue that Murdoch's News Corporation is really a continuation of events which started in 1858 with the laying of the Atlantic telegraph. It brought the British and the Americans together. It rose the awareness of information across the Atlantic faster than it had ever done. News arrived faster, businesses were closed faster, and crime also grew.
Further more Traditionalist state that not only is globalisation is a continuation of the past but also that the state remains autonomist and retains sovereignty. However, going back to the British Nuclear Fuel example we can see that it was governance from above below and alongside that determined the relocation of nuclear waste plants. The British did not want the plant in Cumbria. The World Bank encouraged it by saying it would be beneficial. However, the Aboriginal leaders were less than enthusiastic. The Transformationalists put forward that globalisation is not one way that is what is dictated by large conglomerates. So, although BskyB holds a multi national passport in the UK, less than a third of the population has Sky or Cable. Of that, it only has an audience share of 16.8%. (Table 2.6 estimated audience share of national and global television channels in the UK in 1997 p.66 A globalising world.) So they argue that nation-states are more likely to view home generated programmes e.g. Eastenders, Coronation Street and Emmerdale Farm as opposed to Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Charmed.
In conclusion we have defined globalisation using the concepts of stretching, intensification, interpenetration and emergence of global infrastructure. We have also looked at what constitutes a nation-state, examining the Globalists, Traditionalists, and Transformationalists viewpoints with evidence for and against. We can now conclude that it is the Transformationalists who come close to answering the question of globalisation and its impact on the sovereignty and the autonomy of nation-states. Essentially globalisation redefines sovereignty and autonomy as a more fluid form of governance. The Westphalian concept is replaced with governance coming from above and below.