Explain the changing nature of nation-state in the context of globalization?

According to Walker Connor, 'The term nation-state was originally intended to

describe a political unit (a state) whose borders coincided or roughly coincided with
the territorial distribution of a nation'. Today, because of the confusion between
nation and state, nation-state has lost its original meaning and generally represented
all states. While, as Beck,Ulrich writes 'The nation state is a territorial state: that is,
its power is grounded upon attachment to a particular place(upon control over
membership, current legislation, border defense, and so on) From the above
viewpoints, it is not difficult to conclude that the concept of nation-state emphasizes
the 'border' and its authority is closely tied to the territory. It might be the reasons
why nation-states are evitable to be largely influenced during the process of
globalization. Subsequently, more and more scholars begin to claim that under the
global background, nation-state has become outdated and will eventually wither
away.
As Alvin Toffler argues that 'As nations are torn apart and restructured..a world in
which the nation-state has become, for many purposes, a dangerous anachronism'
(1981:23). What is more, Michael Mann(1997:473) points out that most of the
scholars including postmodernists, geographers, sociologists and economists,
suggest globalization is weakening the nation-state with similar statements such as
'Undermining', 'undercutting', 'outflanking' or 'marginalization' of the nation-state. On
the contrary, Michael Mann (1997) poses two political counter-theses: For one thing,
state institutions still have causal efficacy to maintain social existence. For another
thing, globalization is unable to have the same impacts on all different states.
Political influences on the nation-state
Globalization has weakened the sovereign status of the nation-state in the
international relations. Nation-states have the power to deal with domestic and
foreign affairs according to their own will, without being controlled and interfered by
other states. That is to say, states have the independence and freedom to choose
their own political, economic, social system and development direction, which is the
symbol of national sovereignty. 'Sovereignty' is the supreme power of one state to
deal with domestic and foreign affairs and it is unified and indivisible. However, to be
objective, globalization has led to unprecedented development of international
organizations and there have been more and more international organizations play
important roles in international relations. It should be mentioned that international
organization has contributed greatly to develop international politics, economy,
culture, technology and so on, to coordinate the international political and economic
relations, to mediate international disputes and to strive for world peace.
Meanwhile, there has been an increasing tendency that international organizations
even carry out some governmental functions, such as disarmament, regional conflict,
ethnic disputation, and even political democratization of nation-states. As a result,
the sovereignty of the nation-states would be weakened to different degree. For
instance, the United Nations, the Word Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the
World Trade Organization (WTO), the European Union and some other International
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO), they can institute rules and clauses which
can regulate the governments of member states, constrain and influence the
decision making process of sovereign states.
As Larry Ray mentions '..globalization possibly weakens the effectiveness and
cohesion of the nation-state as its traditional functions are hollowed out - transferred
upwards to international organizations ...' What is more, it seems that the power of
the international organizations keeps on expanding. From peacekeeping operations
to the weapons inspections, from supervising the general elections of member states
to coordinating domestic partisan struggle, the United Nations operations have
become increasingly transcend the boundaries of national sovereignty. The
ever-increasing numbers and power of international organizations is just one of the
obvious phenomena of globalization process. Nevertheless, it can support the
viewpoint hold by Beck,Ulrich(2000:3) ' Globalization ...are thus intended to shake off
the fetters not only of trade unions but also of the national state, to deprive national
politics as such of its power... the final aim is to dismantle the existing responsibilities
and apparatus of the state, to bring about the anarchistic market utopia...
Economic influences on the nation-state
Globalization is on the basis of economic globalization. In the process of economic
globalization, the developing countries introduce foreign investment, bring in leading
technology, learn advanced managerial experience and transform industrial
structure, so as to promote their economic development. At the same time, the
developed countries take advantage of the cheaper labor and abundant natural
resources in order to ease the domestic supply and demand, increasing economic
growth. While, globalization is undermining the economic foundation of nation-states,
giving rise to inestimable repercussions.
Firstly, the control of the nation-states on domestic economic developments has
been softened up to some degree during the process of globalization. On one hand,
economic globalization takes place in the form of market economy which lays great
emphasis on the power of free market, advocates abolishing various restrictions on
economic activities and opposes to state interventions In economic process, market
work as an 'invisible hand' to modulate social production and resource allocation. To
enable markets to function effectively, states have to give up some managerial
authority. It seems that nation-states have been losing their control on the national
economy which could be potentially dangerous to the nation-state. On the other
hand, Globalization has integrated the economic development of different
nation-states into the international economic order. Any state, who wants to
participate in the international division of labor, enter into the world economic
integration process, must abide by the game rules of international market. For
example, WTO Agreement is about international trade rules on the states or other
economic entities and requires WTO members to ensure their domestic legislation
and trade policy in conformity with the rules. Otherwise, it can not become a member
of WTO. If there is a member that violates the rules, WTO can even impose
economic sanctions against it. As mentioned above, it might gradually show that
globalization is a new form of imperialism imposing western political and economic
dominance over other countries and becomes a threat to nation-states.
(Larry Ray, 2007)
Secondly, one of the principal features of globalization is the remarkable
development of transnational corporations (TC), which has become a major driving
force of economic globalization. It must be acknowledged that transnational
corporations inject capital, introduce technology, create a huge number of jobs and
provide professional training to the staff, which will have some positive effects on the
host countries. However, on account of the information asymmetry and strength
disparity, transnational corporations, with the predominant technology, management,
brand, marketing and any other advantages, quickly occupy the domestic market,
attacking the national industry of developing countries. Worse, what transnational
corporations tend to transfer to developing countries primarily is mature industry or
'sunset industry'. They apply serious restrictions in technology diffusion and transfer,
which is not conducive for host countries to upgrade technology and transform
industrial structure.
Transnational corporations use international investment to achieve globalized
production and sales and create new international relations and industrial patterns,
influencing the target and direction of the host countries' industrial structure
transformation. This shows that the transnational corporations are playing a more
and more critical role in the global resource allocation and a number of developing
countries of which some industry or even the economic lifeline has been under the
control of transnational corporations.
Thirdly, global investment is usually interested in high-tech industries, which might
affect the employment of general workers, increasing the extent of the difference
between rich and poor, aggravating social instability. Now, it should be noticed that
globalization is sapping the nation-state by its global free market where the state
governments are forbidden to intervene in economy. However, some scholars begin
to notice that it is no longer a pure economics issue. Beck,Ulrich (2000) claims that
nation-states have been deprived of their capability to reduce the gulf between rich
and poor and they are unable to even out the social distribution. It indicates that
nation-states are in a crucial dilemma. Although they are being threatened by the
rising tide of globalization, they still can not shut themselves off from the globe.
Cultural influences on the nation-state
Along with the progress of economic globalization, Science and technology,
economy and trade, international cooperation and exchange has advanced human
culture to a new era of globalization.
Economic activities are important means of cultural exchange and dissemination.
Growingly close international economic cooperation has promoted cultural
exchanges among nations and even influence the cultural production and
consumption. In contemporary information era, with the help of omnipresent and
even omnipotent media, information from various countries is more likely to flow
around the world across boundaries. Whereas, both the popular culture and even
core culture of developing countries seems to be considerably affected by
globalization.
On one hand, developed countries make use of powerful media, such as internet,
satellite television and newspapers and so on, spread and penetrate western
ideology and culture to other countries in the world, which may dangerously shake
the ideology, value, national culture and religion in some developing countries.

Has globalization destroyed the nation-state?

As mentioned above, globalization has resulted in significant changes of
nation-states politics, economy and culture. Nevertheless, it does not follow that
globalization has destroyed the nation-state.
Politically, Capitalism and Socialism are two fundamentally opposed social systems
which have irreconcilable contradictions. Globalization is the historical phenomenon
in the wake of Capitalism development. The developed capitalist countries are still
the dominant force in the contemporary world and acting as international
rule-makers.
In the context of globalization, Conflicts between capitalist countries and socialist
countries not only exists, but sometimes even intensifies. This indicates that
globalization is not a peaceful process, but rather full of sharp competitions between
the states. Hence, with this understanding, it is unlikely to it is unlikely to develop the
global political community.
Economically, in the process of globalization, in order to keep up with the
international trends, nation-states have transferred a proportion of economic
decision-making power but it does not mean giving up the economic sovereignty of
the state.
A powerful government should firmly control its economic lifeline and grasp the
economic development power, such as strategies and tactics of economic
development and economic regime and policies. Or else it is possible to repeat the
same failures of Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. As a result, in order to safeguard
the interests of nation-states, ensure their own economic security and social stability,
nation-states are bound to highlight and strengthen the national consciousness and
state functions.
Culturally, globalization indeed facilitates the national culture exchange and
combination. And yet, national culture combination does not signify that the 'common
culture' has already been created in the process of globalization.
Cultural clash always exists which lies in the differences and contradictions of
economic interest and the reason why there are economic interest contradictions is
because of the existence of stakeholder-nation-states.
National culture fully reflects the civilization and wisdom of one nation-state and is
spiritual connection to bind the state and nation. National cultural, constituted by
specific language, lifestyle and geography and so on, is deeply rooted. Therefore,
globalization is unable to eliminate the national culture. Instead, it may raise the
importance of national culture and then strengthen national culture.
To sum up, although globalization has differential effects on politics, economy,
culture and social life of nation-states. It can not change the objective fact that
nation-state exists and keeps developing.

What is Globalisation? Discuss state sovereignty in context of globalization?

ANS. It is said that the term "globalisation" was first used in French literature on
International Relations dating back to the early 1950s. (The French term for
globalisation is mondalisation). However, the usage of the term in International
Relations literature has come about in very recent years especially in the wake of the
so-called revolution in information and communication technology. Although the term
"globalisation" is widely used yet there appears to be no agreement in terms of what
this phenomenon represents. In that sense, it is as popular in current usage as it is
contested in respect of what it signifies.
Some writers have given the broadest possible scope to the term. To them,
globalisation is a "Multi-faceted" phenomenon "impacting" on social, economic and
political spheres of human experience. Others are of the view that globalisation is "a
set" of phenomenon that accompany one another with no aspect being more
important or significant than others. According to them, numerous factors distinguish
the globalisation process of today. These distinctions include more rapid
communications, market liberalisation and global integration of the production of
goods and services.
In other accounts, some writers distinguish one characteristic of globalisation as
giving rise to others. In other words, they restrict the overall reference of the term
"globalisation". Such descriptions usually extend beyond communications technology
to other areas such as economics and politics. Yet, they locate the root or the
foundation of globalisation in the advance of global communication networks. For
they argue that the communications revolution has made it possible for ideas,
information and cultural values to transcend seamlessly beyond nation-state
boundaries. In the process, these changes have triggered new political and social
dynamics across the world.
There are others who emphasize solely the economic characteristic of the process of
globalisation. To them, globalisation refers not to a fully "interconnected world
market" but simply to the increasing "interconnection of markets" of different
countries largely on account of the liberalisation of trade, capital investment and
diffusion of services across the world.
Contesting this approach of characterising globalisation as synonymous with
"free-market capitalism", others argue that globalisation is two-dimensional-One, it
serves as powerful vehicle that raises economic growth, spreads technology and
contributes to better living standards in countries of both the developed and
developing world; and two, it "assaults" the sovereign authority of the nation-state,
"erodes" local culture and tradition and even "threatens" economic and social
stability.
Admittedly, these different definitions reflect the variations in the range of
phenomenon encompassing the term "globalisation". Based on these variations in
the characterisation of globalization, it is possible to identify at least five distinct
features of the term:
1) It is most usefully employed as a descriptive rather than a prescriptive term. It
does not designate some desirable or undesirable end to be accepted or avoided. It
merely reflects a set of social, political, economic and technological forces that have
recently become distinctly pronounced.
2) The term in its usage is perhaps relatively new whereas the
phenomenon/phenomena it designates could by no means be treated as new. The
past has also experienced the phenomena that the term "globalisation" entails.
3) The institutions that have emerged as a consequence of the globalisation process
extend beyond the power and authority of nation-states. So much so, in the
"globalising" international affairs, nation-states are no longer exclusive actors as in
the past but besides there are other actors too which, among others, include
non-government organizations (NGOs), environmental movements, transnational
corporations, ethnic nationalities and multi-state regional organisations.
4) In the 'globalising" world, the role performance of the new actors encompasses a
relatively large field because of the growing number of economic, political and
communication networks. To that extent, these networks have made nation-state
boundaries porous and permeable to the movement of people, goods, services,
ideas and information.
5) The globalisation process has not only made international relations more
expansive but also intensive because there are not only greater number of actors
and networks influencing one another, but more importantly, the impact each one
makes on the other is qualitatively greater than in the past. Global media networks,
the products of transnational corporations and the large migration of people from one
part of the world to the other have greatly influenced the social and cultural moorings
of people across the world.
The concept of sovereignty has been a key idea in the evolution of the modern world
and the all-powerful nation-state. Initially, it involved the state's authority to exercise
legal violence in order to maintain order within a given territory. Gradually nation
states have assumed more legitimate claims over the exclusive authority within its
territorial boundaries by adding welfare functions. With this, citizens have developed
expectations on their nation states' ability to resolve their problems. Objectivity in the
exercise of authority lends legitimacy to the acts of nation-state.
In the late twentieth century, the nation state, however, enters into crisis with the
advent of globalisation. Its ability to act independently has been strained by the
external forces at the global level and internal forces at the local level. Nation-states
are Wixed by the forces of global integration and of local fragmentation.
The most important structuring of relationship in most peoples' lives has been their
relationship to the nation-state. The people who have hitherto had a privileged link to
the state, no longer have it, as states are neither able to negotiate with global forces
on their own nor are capable of forging a sense of unity among their citizens who
choose to live through exclusive identities. The developing countries feel this more
intensely because the (disability of the state on both fronts is more prominent.
Citizens are seeking new forms of organization, which involve asserting their
identities in different ways. The effects are manifold. Local communities, seeking a
greater share of resources, will sometimes see that their interests lie in underpinning
nation-states, at other times in subverting them.
The rising local forces are increasingly seeking to project their issues at global level
putting pressure on nation-state. The recent phenomenon of world summits is a case
in point to explain haw the local communities are seeking to become trans-border
entities.
The Vienna Summit of human rights groups, the Beijing Summit of women groups,
Rio Summit of ecological groups, Durban Summit against Racism or the World
Social Forum (WSF) are all mobilizing the local communities across nations on the
lines of ethnic, caste, gender, ecological issues. They raise the questions of social
justice beyond the purview of nation-states and connect these local groups with the
global processes. For instance, the track record of human rights within a country has
emerged as a crucial issue in disbursement of loans or grants by international
lending agencies. This explains how nation-state is coming under the pressure from
both the domestic and global forces.
Concerns about globalisation's threat to nation-state sovereignty also relates to the
increasing pressure on national governments to implement international treaties and
conventions that satisfies the international community. This increasingly subjects the
national governments to demands and standards set out in multilateral treaties on a
variety of issues.
In traditional understanding of international relations, focusing upon treaties
reinforced the centrality of the nation-states and national interests in international
relations.
Treaties were made between nation-states for their mutual benefit. They sought to
secure peace between states rather than provide grounds for international scrutiny of
nation-state's domestic arrangements. In the nation-state-centric world, treaties were
means of protecting sovereignty. However, in recent years international treaties have
proliferated impinging on the domestic jurisdiction of the nation-states. Besides
regulating the diplomatic relations, these treaties impose domestic political,
economic and environmental obligations upon nation-states.
Further, Peter Willets in his recent study of a whole range of transnational actors,
including multinational corporations, identifies some of the important grounds on
which states appear to be fast losing their abilities to maintain their sovereign
authorities.
Analysing the political impact of excessive transnationalisation of major companies
on the states, Willets argues that "it is no longer possible to regard each country as
having its own economy". This has had its most severe impact on the abilities of the
states to exercise effective control over two of the most fundamental attributes of
sovereignty, i.e. control over the currency and control over foreign trade. By
illustrating the case of increasing intra-firm trade and frequent recourse to fixing of
transfer prices that the MNCs take, Willets shows how the states are fast losing their
sovereignty in respect to control of financial flows.
Increasing recourse to the means of 'triangulation' by companies has become a
standard technique to evade the control of states over trade. The process of
triangulation refers to a situation in which trade between two countries is routed
indirectly via a third country. By illustrating the case of Falklands war between Britain
and Argentina, Willets shows how even in the face of economic sanctions imposed
by the European Community on Argentina companies could still indulge in
triangulation, sending their exports via Brazil or Western Europe. It was also possible
for transnational companies to alternatively shift orders to a branch in a third country.
All this clearly shows that while it could still be possible for states to prevent direct
import or exports of goods, it would be impossible to prevent indirect trade from one
country to another.
The diminishing control of governments in respect to regulating the commercial
activities of companies within their countries due to frequent recourse to what has
come to be called 'regulatory arbitrage' by MCs constitutes another ground on which
sovereignty is being compromise. Arbitrage refers to the simple process of buying a
product in one market and selling it in a different market, in order to make a profit
from the difference between the prices in the two markets, regulatory arbitrage is
used in the world of banking. Regulatory arbitrage refers to the process of moving
funds or business activity from one country to another, in order to increase profits by
escaping the constraints imposed by government regulations.
Thus, economic, social, demographic and technological forces of globalization are
dramatically altering relationships among nations as well as the nature of politics,
public policy, administration, institutional relations within the nation-states, and have
impacted the sovereignty of the states in multiple ways.