Globalization is seen as a fairly new concept. We began to see global changes towards the end of WW2 with the developments of world trade, global investments, multinational corporations, global tourism and the global media. But it is possible to see signs of globalisation as early as the 19th century in writings of key thinkers, such as Karl Marx. Marx predicted that through capitalism and the unification of the human race, we would see a decline in nationalism and the end of the state, his predictions may not have been 'spot on', but it is possible to see similarities in what he has written and the developments now going on. It is also possible to see the emergence of globalisation through telegraphic communications in the 1840's, the introduction of short wave radio in the 1920's and the global movements of feminism in the late 19th century. It really wasn't until after WW2 that we began to see developments and only since the 1960's that we have seen huge developments within globalisation, such as, the developments of the internet, global environmental problems, the human rights culture, the spread of HIV/AIDS and most recently the Al Queda .
Globalization can be therfore be seen to be forcing many changes within the world. As mentioned previously there are many concepts closely related to globalization and frequently confused as globalization. These concepts help show the effect that globalization is having on the world. I have already mentioned Internationalisation which represents the growth of interactions and interdependence between countries, for example through the development of global tourism. Liberalisation can also be seen as an effect of globalization through the removal of restrictions between countries resulting in an open or interconnected world economy. The concept of universalization represents the spread of experiences and objects to people all over the planet, this is shown through both the media and travel. Some have identified globalisation with westernization (although most are critics of cultural imperialism), but it is frequently associated with the deterritorialization, where borders are seen to be losing their influence. Globalization is having a huge effect on the world but its effects do not seem to be spread very evenly. Chomsky, a radical thinker, rightly pointed out that the majority of the world have yet to have used a telephone let alone email and so have yet to have been effected fully by the spread of globalization. Roger Masters (1969:115) drew the conclusion that globalization shows how unstable world politics is by underlining the decentralization of power and the uneven impact of economic, political and social change.
All these effects are the result of globalisation, but how does this effect the state. Much of recent debates on globalization, have been on how it effects the state. States seem to have very little control over globalisation and its effects such as global companys, satelite remote sensing and the global economy.Due to this, globalization is posing a threat to the classic Westphalian system and its key principle, state sovereignty. However state sovereignty is a fairly new concept that only arose during the Westphalian agreement, it is therefore believed that it is possible for the state to survive without sovereignty. Since the Westphalian system agreement there have been many developments within the world and many aspects of the agreement have been questioned, it could be possible that we are at that stage in modernization where the non-sovereign state could be a positive change.
Ngaire Woods (2001:ch13) puts forward the notion that globalisation will have different effects on states and therefore suggests distinguishing the states through categorising them as 'weak' or 'strong' states. A 'strong' state will control the nature of and their integration onto the world, whereas the 'weak' state will be forced on to the world stage. Globalisation will still pose a threat to all states, including 'strong' states, but they may have a better chance of dealing with them. It has been generally agreed that although globalisation is eroding the sovereignty of the state, it is in no way invalidating the state. Globalisation is not just having a negative effect on the state , due to the interdependence and transborder networking it would be very unlikely the world will see any major interstate wars, this is due to the domino effect it would have on our world economy, Idealist predicted this prior to WW1. Globalisation has also resulted in direct transborder links between provincal and municipal governments.
Globalization is and has caused tense changes for the modern state. Globalization is causing large constraints on the freedom to exercise state sovereignty. Globalization has not been felt evenly and therefore will effect different states autonomy in different ways. Ngaire Woods theory of 'weak' and 'strong' states helps explain the power states have in the age of globalization. Those states labled as 'strong' states such as the US, will benefit greatly from globalization. Although they will no longer be soverieign they will still hold the power to make decisions both domestically and internationally. As they are able to make the rules and introduce the institutions within the global economy, that will benefit themselves. Unfortunately 'weak' states will only be able to try to work within the levels set out by the strong states that may not be very beneficial to thier own economy or state. This could lead to high competitiveness between 'strong' states, and those stronger states will compete for the highest place in the global market that will give them a better advantage over the others. The state would still be able to make both domestic and foreign policy, but whilst making these policies will need to put a lot of consideration into its effects on the global stage. Realist do not think that globalisation has or ever will change matters central to realism, they still beleive that the state will always prevail over international tendencies. They also add never to take the primacy of strategic factors for granted in world politics.
The future of the state is at question due to the growth in globalisation. Most key thinkers do not propose to dissolve the state. Many feel the state still holds as much of the importance it did once before. Fundamentally it is likely the state will change and its characteristics may develop to accomodate the growth and effects of globalization. History shows us that the majority of states did not represent the people or nation but most commonly, were owned my the monarch, who were frequently not very well suited to run a country but inherited the right and obligation to do so. The idea that the state should represent the people only arose in the past two centuries in Europe. Globalists now feel that cosmopolitain democracy would be best suited to the new state due to the nation state being more focused on national interests rather than the global forces affecting them. The cosmopolitain idea that we are all equal have grown alongside globalisation. Cosmopolitains beleive that the emphasise of world politics should be on the individual or humanity as a whole. Critics of cosmoplitain ideas claim they are to whimsical or even unrealistic.
Globalization has led to the beleif that social and economic life is now on a global scale rather than a national one. The recent growth of globalization has been highly intense and therefore some effects have been unforeseen. The effects of globalization have been uneven, this has caused different states to be effected differently aroung the globe. This will lead to unfair advantages in the states dealing with the effects of globalization. It is highly unlikely that the state will dissapear just that it will re-emerge with new characteristics and ideas. This has given way to the emergence of new ideas for the ideology of the state, such as cosmopolitain democracy and the globalized state. Cosmopolitain democracy as an ideal route for states to take, as it is more universally focused than the current nation-state. The globalized state is seen as a state that can deal with and respond to the pressures of globalization. This shows that the state is not retreating but is just changing its behaviour, a globalized state will still be seen as seperate. Even as states identities change they will still be seen to co-exist within international order. To answer the starting question whether the power of the state has been undermined by globalisation, i would have to answer, yes to a certain degree. The state, due to globalization, can no longer control all factors and interactions within and over its territorial borders, such as communication, the media, transnational companies and so on. The state is still capable of imposing law and order over its citizens and domestic policies, they are still responsible for the states survival and security. Due to globalization states need to be aware of the new factors and efects of globalization when making foriegn and economic policies.
Bibliography
Armstrong, D. (1993), Revolution and World Order: The Revolutionary State in International Society (Oxford: Clarendon Press)
Axford, B. (1995), The Global Sytem: Economics, Politics and Culture (Cambridge: Polity Press)
Baylis, J., and Smith, S. (2001), The Globalization of World Politics: An Introdution to International Relations (2nd ed) (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Giddens, A.(1990), The Consequences of Modernity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age (Cambridge: Polity Press, and Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press).
Haskell, T. L., and Teichgraeber III, R. F. (1993), The Culture of the Market: Historical Essays (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Heywood, A. (2002), Politics (London:Palgrave).
??? (1998), Key Concepts in Politics (London:Palgrave).
Masters, R. D. (1968), The Political Philosophy of Rousseau (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
Waltz, K.(1979), Theory of International Politics (Reading, Mass.:Addison-Wesley)
