Does Globalisation imply the end of a Nation-State

Does Globalisation imply the end of a Nation-State?

Name

Institution

Course

Date

In the recent decades, governments have been facing a new challenge of globalisation. The world’s politics as well as the new world order is facing threats from the sovereignty of the nation states. In reference with the growing world democracy and interdependence between nation states, governments are growing weaker, and they are losing popularity as time proceeds. However, the most salient issues are the consequence of these interconnectedness and democracy in relation with the autonomy and sovereignty of the state. From a critical evaluation, we all wonder whether globalisation surely mean the end of sovereignty. For us to answer this question, it is pertinent to understand the meaning of state sovereignty and globalisation. This will enhance measuring the effects of globalisation on state sovereignty. Following the argument by different philosophers concerning the scope of the two terms: globalisation and sovereignty, the discussion will strictly limit itself to the philosophical, political, economic and criminological aspect (Brocker, 2010).

The thesis of this writing revolves around implications of globalisation on the state in connection with the ongoing debates on the “decline of state” in relation with the “strength of the state”. In reference with the globalisation sceptics, there is the denial that the reality of globalisation is enquiring the degree of change attributed by globalisation. This is against the argument by globalisation believers who assert that it is difficult to resist globalisation. The argument will limit itself to the implications, which show that globalisation undermine the strength of the state (Paul & Ripsman, 2010).

State’s decline due to globalisation

The concept that every nation should be confined to its jurisdictions is among the most threatened aspects, yet this stood as one of the most critical and brightest prospects of a nation. Globalisation is slowly corroding most administrative functions of many nations out there. Even though, I can argue out that there are conflicting definitions of states administration, all can conform to me that administrative machinery differs substantially from a communitarian nation in all considerable aspects. In the present world, most nations stand as a collective social identity rather based on common historic and cultural heritage other than an administrative contrivance. I can assume that globalisation has ingrained neoliberal theories into varying societies and nations (Reid, Gill, & Sears, 2010). This has in turn convicted classical liberalism assuming that market forces will bring peace and democracy to the whole human kind, hence pertinent that all controls implemented by the state be done away (Held, 2009). These controls include things such as prices, wages and rates in foreign exchange. Such progress has led to challenging time in the autonomy and sovereignty of the state. Based on the above facts, I can observe that globalisation is gradually depleting political power from the nation-states which is the most influential figure in political organizations of world politics (Ohmae, 2009).

Since time in memorial, leaders of states have been relying on other nations to support them in implementing policies and official laws. Since it is the prime aspect of political power of and the administrative state in this heated debate entailing globalisation and its effect concerning the loose of the state’s power and or sovereignty to its citizens, it is overly crucial that a person critically examine the role of globalisation on this issue (Green, 1999). To many, they quite do not understand the real involvement of globalisation in this issue while for others, it is the fear far more reaching erosion of the country’s state. In this light, there are many aspects that one ought to take into account because globalisation covers a broad range of aspects of the international political economy (Bosrock, 2012). In the world economy, globalisation has significantly contributed more so in making the world a single unit by making it borderless (Mcgrew & Lewis, 1999). However, we should all know that it is because of economy that many nations seek to interact, and in the process ideas get exchanged leading to the implementation of such laws and policies that are international in nature. For one to get a clear aspect of the situation in order to come up to a desirable decision, it is crucial that he or she acknowledges that following five theses: sceptical thesis, hyperactive globalist thesis, complex globalisation thesis, ideational globalisation thesis and finally the new institutional thesis (Brocker, 2010).

A debate on globalisation in relation to politics

Globalisation combines a myriad of aspects ranging from social, economic and political. According to Scholte, globalisation encompasses distinctive features that are crucial to the world history. Since political globalisation and economic globalisation go hand in hand, it would be prudent of me to recognize this as the prime reason to why politics gets majorly affected by globalisation. According to Giddens, globalisation has the foundation of four vital elements; intensification, extensity, deepening impact and velocity. With the technology in the present world, the circulation of goods and services flows rapidly ( HYPERLINK “http://economics.about.com/cs/guestbios/a/bala.htm” Balakrishnan, 2012).

This has resulted to intensified interdependence on goods and services among nations. Because of this, there arise international laws that govern the way business is done, therefore, depriving many nations the ability to manage the businesses in their countries (Mcgrew & Lewis, 1991). There are involved laws such as international environmental conformance, social ethical responsibility laws among others. We can all agree based on the experiences we come by every time one intends to invest that the number of international laws that one ought has to adhere to have more weight than the local government requirements (Gill and David, 2008).

This is a clear indication of how the political power of a nation has been eroded overtime. All the decision making in most countries have to be based on the economical ability of the country in relation to resources and technology in their position. If the country lacks this, then it will ultimately bow to any incoming business investors since it has become a basic need to state. This shows utmost dependence of most nations since most of the states intend to improve their economic conditions; they are enslaved to international investor and international laws. This deprives the state its political power since it has to do almost anything in order to register its status quo in the world (Bosrock, 2012).

Another crucial aspect based on Hay and Marsh is the idea of demystifying globalisation. They insist that it is pertinent to view globalisation on the idea side other that looking at the materialistic aspect of it. Ideas shape the current world, even globalisation has been enhanced by ideas (Bhagwati, 2005). A good example is the United States that has to adopt the idea of welcoming foreign investors so that they could maximize the income earnings out of them. However, they had no interest in UNCTAD since they never saw any importance in it. We should learn to conceptualize ideas better so that the state can get better earnings based on the best idea they possessed (Burke, 2012).

Understanding the nation-state

The state is probably the most fundamental aspect of any political power. The World’s history shows how different countries have been fighting to protect the integrity of their territorial boundaries as well as establishing their own systems that are free from outside influence. However, political borders began having less significance after the Second World War and the cold war. The two wars gave way to the end of the Soviet Union, which led to massive globalisation. Countries started depending on others through economic and cultural interaction. The understanding of the term state and the underlying factors is perhaps what changes because of globalisation (Ritzer, 2010).

A nation-state is a country that is defined by clear political boundaries and which has a government that exercises its powers over the citizens and outsiders, in an attempt to protect its territory. The majority of population in the area must be citizens for a country to qualify to be a nation-state (Brocker, 2010). The term sovereignty has a connection with nation-state. It refers to the ability of a country to control all the activities that take place within and outside the borders. It also refers to the ability of a country to make independent decisions regarding its citizens, operations and activities (Shefner & Fernández-Kelly, 2010).

Globalisation and the nation-state

It is impossible to talk about globalisation without mentioning the nation-state. Globalisation affects the understanding of a nation-state. Globalisation establishes a culture that is a blend of many independent cultures. All members of the society including the marginalized groups benefit from globalisation. This shows that globalisation helps in solving some problems that are associated with nation-states (Guéhenno, 2005). Globalisation leads to the creation of international economies that allow free movement of people and resources across geographical borders. However, individual countries are solely responsible for maintenance of integrity and respect of law within their boundaries. The effects of globalisation in individual countries come in the form of restructuring the systems of government and its authority (Giddens, 2011).

Globalisation gives states the pressure of following its demands and coping up with other nations in the world. Thus, globalisation does not necessarily undermine the states, but rather compliment their existence. Nevertheless, it is common for most states to believe that globalisation is a way of bringing to an end the existence of sovereign nations. This is the reason that makes policy makers conclude that the impacts of globalisation depend on the state involved.

Globalisation and the end of nation-state

The essay will take the option of disagreeing with the statement that globalisation implies an end to nation-states. However, the essay will refer to both sides in an attempt to bring out a clear understanding of the underlying issues of globalisation (Christiansen, 2005). From an analyst point of view, globalisation has affected the political scene in the world. Globalisation capitalizes on economics to influence how different countries relate with one another (Lenhard, 2010). A keen observation of the impacts of globalisation reveals that countries tend to prioritize their issues and interests rather than adapting to the demands of globalisation. Nation-states facilitate the existence of globalisation and hence its existence cannot undermine activities and existence of the states (Cohen and Kennedy, 2002). For instance, companies are opening international branches in their efforts to increase profitability and market control. The subsidiary companies will send their profits to their home countries thus benefiting rather than undermining them. A company that has branches in many countries establishes interdependence between the countries. The interdependence increases the diplomatic relations between countries, which leads to a state of peace in the world (Dicken, 2005).

The idea of globalisation does not involve companies only. It also involves countries, which also enhances the discussion that globalisation does not lead to an end in nation-states. Many countries that uphold globalisation unite with others that have a close relationship. Countries unite based on their locations as well as the issues and activities that they share in common. For example, the African Union is a group of all African countries while the European Union comprises of all countries in Europe (Holton, 2008). This implies that the countries will have numerous similarities in their activities and culture. Therefore, globalisation leads to strengthening of the culture of nations rather than undermining the actions of the countries (Hall and D. Soskice, 2001).

The idea of political relationship between countries has changed especially after globalisation became an indispensable aspect of the world’s economy. Countries have now grouped themselves and minimized the barriers and differences between them (Holton, 2008). The groupings are mainly on an economic basis where countries share their political authority and economic activities. Some individuals regard these groupings as agents of disintegration of country values. However, the groupings do not challenge the existence of countries as independent states free from external influence. The European Union is a sufficient example to show how can benefit from globalisation while still holding their individual sovereignty. Member countries of the European Union depend on each other for their economic activities. Their interdependence is so deep that the countries use the same currency (the Euro) in their transactions. Creating a competitive business environment is the ultimate concern of the European Union. The political system of the member countries remains intact despite their relationships (Hirst, and Thompson, 2009).

There are fears that groupings such as the European Union eliminate nation-states and lead to national corporations. This is a flawed argument because the members of such groupings draft their constitution as well as the regulations. Membership is also voluntary and depends on the individual opinions of member countries. Globalisation contributes to the wellbeing of states and their citizens. The main role of a state is to provide social amenities to its subjects as well as protect their territorial boundaries and integrity. Globalisation will help countries in advancing their state of technology, as well as the overall infrastructure. This will help states in applying technology in maintaining security as well as providing social services to the citizens (Held, McGrew and Perraton, 1999).

Conclusion

Globalisation is a trend that is influencing the relationship and actions of different countries in the world. The countries cannot avoid globalisation because of its economic significance. It enhances competition among businesses and leads to exchange of resources and ideas between different countries (Berberoglu, 2003). Globalisation has affected the understanding of nation-states and the approach of many countries towards sovereignty. Many countries believed that sovereignty is the act or the ability of a country to exist independently from other nations. However, globalisation has replaced such thoughts and brought about the interdependence of different nations. Different scholars and opinion makers have used the changes that globalisation brings to the world to argue that globalisation will eventually lead to termination of nation-states.

Globalisation contributes to the strength and existence of countries in as much as it affects their political and economic systems. The contributions of globalisation in improving the welfare of countries suggest that its role is strengthening rather than leading to disintegration of nation-states. The European Union serves as the best example of the effects of globalisation on countries (Christiansen, 2005). Members of the European Union share interact with each other through trade and other relationships, but they all value their national interests. Their interaction has strengthened the relationship between the countries rather than disintegrating their political structure. The arguments above lead to the conclusion that globalisation does not lead to an end of nation-state.

References

Balakrishnan, C., (2012). “Impact of Globalisation on Developing Countries and India”, http://economics.about.com/od/globalisationtrade/l/aaglobalisation.htm

Berberoglu, B. (2003). Globalization of capital and the nation-state: Imperialism, class struggle, and the state in the age of global capitalism. Lanham, MD, Rowman & Littlefield.

Bhagwati, J. (2004). In Defense of Globalisation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bosrock, R. M., (2012).“As Political Borders Fade, Cultural Differences Re-emerge”. Retrieved 1st November 2012. Available at: http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/cultural/cultur1.htm

Brocker, J., et al, (2010). Innovation Clusters and Interregional Competition. Berlin: Springer-Verlag Berlin and Heidelberg GmbH & Co. K.

Burke, A. The Perverse Perseverance of Sovereignty, Borderlands e-journal, Retrieved 1st November 2012. Available at:

Christiansen, T., (2005). “European Integration and Regional Cooperation”, in J. Baylis and S. Smith., The Globalisation of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cohen, R. and Kennedy, P. (2002). Global Sociology. Palgrave.

Dicken, P. (2003). Global Shift: Reshaping the Global Economic Map in the 21st Century. London: Sage Publications.

Giddens, A (ed.) (2011). Sociology: Introductory Reading, Oxford: Polity.

Gill, S. and David, L. (2008) The Global Political Economy: Perspectives, Problems, and Policies. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press

Green, A. (1997). Education, globalization and the nation state. Basingstoke, Hampshire [u.a.], Macmillan [u.a.].

Guéhenno, J.-M. (2005). The end of the nation-state. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.

Hall, P.A. and D. Soskice (2001). Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Held, D. (2009). Global transformations: politics, economics and culture. Stanford, Calif, Stanford Univ. Press.

Held, D., and McGrew, A. and Goldblatt, D., Perraton, J. (1999). Global Transformations: Politics, Economics, and Culture. Cambridge: Polity.

Hirst, P. and Thompson, G. (2009) Globalisation in Question. Cambridge: Polity.

Holton, R. J. (2008). Globalisation and the Nation-State. New York: Palgrave.

HYPERLINK “http://www.borderlandsejournal.adelaide.edu.au/vol1no2_2002/burke_perverse.html” http://www.borderlandsejournal.adelaide.edu.au/vol1no2_2002/burke_perverse.html

Lenhard, J. (2010). Is globalization causing the decline of the nation-state? München, GRIN Verlag GmbH. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:101:1-201009141048.

Mcgrew, A. G., & Lewis, P. G. (1991). Global politics: Globalization and the nation state. Polity Press.

Öhler, G. (2003). Globalisation: critical perspectives. New York, Nova Science Publ.

Ohmae, K. (1996) The End of The Nation State. London: HarperCollins.

Paul, T. V., & Ripsman, N. M. (2010). Globalization and the national security state. New York, Oxford University Press.

Reid, A., Gill, J., & Sears, A. M. (2010). Globalization, the nation-state and the citizen: dilemmas and directions for civics and citizenship education. New York, Routledge.

Ritzer, G. (2010). Globalisation: a basic text. Malden, MA, Wiley-Blackwell.

Shefner, J., & Fernández-Kelly, M. P. (2011). Globalisation and beyond: new examinations of global power and its alternatives. University Park, Pa, Pennsylvania State University Press.

Suter, K. (2003). Global order and global disorder: globalisation and the nation-state. Westport, Conn. [u.a.], Praeger.