Globalization and the State: Four Perspectives 633 Every age has its own deﬁ ning terms. In this age, one of those terms is “globalization,” which conveys the widely held view that people are living in a borderless world. Consequently, states are incapable of controlling transnational ﬂ ows of goods and services, and in many parts of the world, states are collapsing. Furthermore, on a daily basis, people experience globalization as news media broadcast reports from Australia to Zimbabwe. Th e idea of globalization challenges state oﬃ cials, who are respon-sible to their citizens for ensuring economic welfare and national security. Th is reﬂ ects the current international system in which there is no higher authority above the state, and as a result, citizens only look to the state for the provision and protection of their well-being. Similarly, globalization challenges scholars of “international relations” who mostly continue to view the states as the most important actors in the international system. If the widely held view of globalization is indeed the case, then international relations scholars must develop new theories of world politics. People commonly speak of the “globalization of the world econo-my. Th ey say industries of all kinds are losing their national identity as they move around the planet for capital, markets, labor, and tech-nology. With such international expansion, the ability of the states to control domestic activities has been deteriorated and the state sovereignty undermined. Th e states’ management of economic policy has become more complicated with the rise of multinational corpo-rations, the organizational form of which currently dominates world trade. Th ese corporations are involved in the cutting edge product development for both goods and services, and have created business structures that seem to have put them beyond the reach of any state authority. Ardalan, Kavous. Understanding Globalization : A Multi-Dimensional Approach, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=3411322.Created from csun on 2023-01-20 04:57:43.Copyright © 2014. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
Understanding Globalization64 Th e relation between globalization and the state, as any other phenomenon, may be seen and analyzed from diﬀ erent viewpoints and that each viewpoint exposes a certain aspect of the phenomenon under consideration. Th is chapter discusses four views with respect to the nature and role of globalization and state. Th e four diﬀ erent views should be regarded as polar ideal types. Th e work of certain authors helps to deﬁ ne the logically coherent form of a certain polar ideal type. But, the work of many authors, who share more than one perspective, is located between the poles of the spectrum deﬁ ned by the polar ideal types. In this chapter, Sections I through IV present the four perspec-tives, and Section V is the conclusion. I. Perspective One or Functionalist View Advances in computer technology and communication systems are the primary forces in the creation of a single global market. Political globalization is a process which is intrinsically connected to the ex-pansion of markets. Economics possesses an inner logic apart from and superior to politics. Politics is rendered almost powerless in the face of an unstoppable and irreversible techno-economic process that destroys all governmental attempts to introduce or reintroduce restrictive policies and regulations. Th e combination of technological advancements and economic self-interest is the driving force behind the new phase in world history in which the government is reduced to the epiphenomenon of the free-market. 1 In the rise of the borderless world, brought on by the irresistible forces of free-market, the nation-state is becoming irrelevant in the global economy. Nation-states have already lost their role as meaningful units of participation in the global economy. Territorial divisions are becoming increasingly less important to human societies and states have less and less control over the process of social life within their borders. Global capital markets drastically reduce nation-states’ ability to control exchange rates and nation-states are vulnerable to the disci-pline imposed by economic choices made elsewhere. In the long run, the process of political globalization will lead to the decline of territory as a meaningful framework for understanding political and social change. No longer functioning along the lines of discrete territorial units, the political order of the future will be determined by economies linked together in an almost seamless global web that operates according to free-market principles. Ardalan, Kavous. Understanding Globalization : A Multi-Dimensional Approach, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=3411322.Created from csun on 2023-01-20 04:57:43.Copyright © 2014. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
Globalization and the State65 Computers and telecommunications have brought the information revolution which has changed the economy. Th ese technologies have become powerful economic forces that have done far more than speed up the industrial economy or enrich it with new conveniences. Th e dif-ference between the old industrial economy and the new information economy is both quantitative and qualitative. Th e world is changing not because with the advancement of technology more work can be produced in less time but because the economy now depends on an entirely new source of wealth; it is the application of information and knowledge to create value. Information technologies have created the new economy or the information economy. Th e information econo-my is diﬀ erent from the industrial economy in the same way that the industrial economy was diﬀ erent from the agricultural economy. It is notable that the change in the source of the wealth of nations leads to the change in the politics of nations. Th e Industrial Revolution changed the source of wealth by trans-forming rock and ore to steel and steam. At the same time, the Industrial Revolution dramatically increased the power of the nation-state not only by enhancing its income but also by expanding its regulatory power and the armaments needed to control the natural resources within its territory. In the last several decades, the information revolution has increasingly been changing the source of wealth. Th e new source of wealth is not material; it is the application of information and knowl-edge to work to create value. Wealth is now created largely through new information and the application of new intellectual capital to the means of production. Th is shift in the source of wealth poses unprecedented problems with respect to the power of governments. Th is is because information resources are not bound to a geographic area and, there-fore, cannot be controlled by governments. An individual embodying intellectual capital can walk through customs oﬃ ces anywhere in the world with nothing to declare. Th e information economy penalizes any control of the territory and diminishes the value of the resources located within the territory under such control. Information resources include streams of electronic data, years of accumulated research embedded in computer memories, operating systems in automated factories, and the intellectual capital carried in the brains of engineers, managers, or investment bankers. In the new economy where the most precious resource is immaterial, the economic doctrines, social structures, and political systems which evolved in an Ardalan, Kavous. Understanding Globalization : A Multi-Dimensional Approach, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=3411322.Created from csun on 2023-01-20 04:57:43.Copyright © 2014. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
Understanding Globalization66economy devoted to the matter become increasingly incompatible with the new situation. Now mankind’s most important rules and customs, and skills and talents should be directed towards uncovering, capturing, producing, preserving, and exploiting information. Th e world needs to improve the existing models of economics of information that sche-matizes its forms and functions. In the information economy, the deﬁ nition of asset is changed, the nature of wealth is transformed, a new path to prosperity is formed, the way people make a living is changed, and who and how manages the world aﬀ airs is changed. Th e competition for the most up-to-date information is totally diﬀ erent from the competition for the best coal-ﬁ elds. Companies or nations who compete for the latest information are entirely diﬀ erent from those that once competed primarily for material resources. Th e information economy and its related institutions – how information is produced and traded, the scope, shape, and protocol of information markets – have impacted government policy, have set the limits of government power, and have redeﬁ ned sovereignty. In the information economy, competitive nations are those who allow information to ﬂ ow freely. Th e free ﬂ ow of information means the free ﬂ ow of data, people, money, books, newspapers, and electronic media. Free markets require free expression. Th e information revolution started shortly after the invention of the electronic computer in 1946, by the rapid progress of computing and communications technologies. Over the past several decades, com-puters and telecommunications have grown in eﬃ ciency more than a million-fold. Both technologies owe their rapid progress to microchip. At the same time that these developments dramatically increased the computer’s power to process and use information, they also radi-cally decentralized that power by liberating computer users from the centralized giant mainframe. Although these developments are crucial, they are not the same as the information economy. Th e information economy is not in new things that are made of microchips but it is in the use of microchips to make things out of the information resources. Computers change what people make, change how people make it, and change how people make the equipment to make it. Information technology and industrial technology are diﬀ erent in kind and not just in degree. Information technology can be pro-grammed to do the required task and can be continuously adjusted. In industrial technology the task is adapted to ﬁ t the technology. Industrial Ardalan, Kavous. Understanding Globalization : A Multi-Dimensional Approach, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=3411322.Created from csun on 2023-01-20 04:57:43.Copyright © 2014. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
Globalization and the State67technology involves manufacturing systems which are based on high volume, long production runs, and standardized products. A change in production runs usually takes a long time and involves shutdown of production. Information technology, on the other hand, avoids shut-downs by allowing almost instant resetting of speciﬁ cations. Computers operate not only in the service sector but also the man-ufacturing sector. Manufacturing plants now use computer hardware and software that integrate vast amounts of information into diﬀ erent stages of manufacturing, process vast amounts information, and pro-vide feedback information in order to make the necessary adjustments in the manufacturing process with minimum human intervention. Th e entire production facility is now coordinated by computer software and communications systems which connect and control digitally controlled machine tools. In this way, now mankind applies his rapidly increasing knowledge to work in order to create value. Expert systems, artiﬁ cial intelligence programs, computer-aided design, and computer-aided manufacturing systems are all knowl-edge-based systems that create value. Th ey are now used in major companies to perform process planning at aircraft plants, reformat-ting international payments at major money center banks around the world, or designing and processing machine parts. Th ey have formed the nucleus of industrial success. As information becomes the most important factor of production, products contain progressively less material. Machines get smaller and factories shrink, use less energy, and require fewer workers. Labor is substituted by information. In the leading industrialized economies, workers work only about half as many hours a year as they did two decades ago, but the production capacity of these economies to pro-duce wealth has grown by about twenty times over the same period. Th at is, in the modern economy, to create value one needs to put more information into products and services. A society’s source of wealth has a crucial eﬀ ect on its political and social structure. For nomads, who raised herds of animals by moving from pasture to pasture, wealth was counted by the size of their herd. Land was not regarded as an asset. Later, in village agriculture, land and water became forms of wealth. Men laid down rules about the ownership of land and water, and political power shifted from nomadic chieftains to territorial rulers. In the industrial economy, real wealth comes from industry. Indus-trial products are machined and solid, which can be seen and touched. Ardalan, Kavous. Understanding Globalization : A Multi-Dimensional Approach, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=3411322.Created from csun on 2023-01-20 04:57:43.Copyright © 2014. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
Understanding Globalization68It is manufacturing that creates real value by producing real goods for sale. Th e mercantilists emphasized three ways of increasing wealth: by increasing the population; by mining; and by controlling international trade to increase the inﬂ ow of hard currency and gold, which the state could use to pay for its army. It was a daunting task to convince the sovereign states to relinquish some of their powers over international trade and increase the states’ own wealth. Th e current information economy requires concessions by sovereign states far greater than those asked of the mercantilist sovereign states. Th e notion of state sovereignty began in medieval era when kings tried to break the power of feudal lords, city-states, the Church, and trade guilds. In modern times, sovereignty means that power of a sovereign to act alone, without the consent of any higher authority. In international aﬀ airs, the ordinary decisions of a sovereign state are not reviewable by any other state. In a modern sovereign state there are many social and economic institutions, such as churches, universities, corporations, and volun-tary associations, which compete with the state for power. All such institutions, even those who are more powerful, live and act under the sovereignty of the state. Th e information revolution has eroded the centralizing power of the state. Th e nation-state and sovereignty will not vanish; and as a matter of fact, there will be many new sovereign nations formed. However, the power of the state and its sovereignty vis-à-vis other institutions within society will diminish. Information is not only power, but also wealth. It is nonmaterial and with the help of modern technology it has become extremely mobile. It can escape government control very easily. Bureaucratic systems of governments for controlling the ﬂ ow or use of information tend to destroy or waste it. Useful economic information is usually original, innovative, timely, nuanced, precise, complex, and challenging. Gov-ernment bureaucracies destroy all those qualities. Governments may well-govern matter but misrule mind, i.e., intellectual capital. Govern-ment controls frustrates and demoralizes them. Governments may be good at regulating, taxing, conﬁ scating, and controlling real products, assets, and businesses which can easily be seen, measured, and kept track of within their borders. Governments do not have much controlling power over what readily move out of Ardalan, Kavous. Understanding Globalization : A Multi-Dimensional Approach, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=3411322.Created from csun on 2023-01-20 04:57:43.Copyright © 2014. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
Globalization and the State69town or across the borders and are concealed inside a human’s brain. Whereas the real economy is a very important source of government power and wealth, the information economy can be a source of the erosion of government power and wealth because the information capital can leave the state’s territory. Industrial economy’s progress was built on massive economies of scale, in which ﬁ rms, plants, and machines grew larger, and they could not be moved in the event of government harassment or expropriation. Governments had great advantage with respect to the captive capital – mines and land, forests and factories – that allowed and promoted an enormous expansion of the government power. On such capital, which consisted of factories, heavy equipment, and natural resources, governments felt free to impose rules and exact payments with no fear that the nation’s capital base would move away over night. Of course, extreme impositions reduced productivity, but after all, government held to the power. In contrast, intellectual capital goes where it is wanted and wel-comed, and it stays where it is attracted and well-treated. It freely moves across borders and around the world, and even the most totali-tarian governments can only temporarily impede its movement. States that subject information enterprises to exorbitant taxes, regulation, political control and repression, or police and military might lose their information capital. Global competition for information capital leads governments to reduce such impositions rather than raise them. In industrial economy, natural resources are the dominant factor of production and therefore, the conquest and control of territory enhances national power. In information economy, the conquest of territory is not worth the cost to the nation. Th is is because war and years of paciﬁ cation and repression scatter intellectual capital, and the natural resources which are gained by conquest are declining in value. Also, size may be an advantage but it has lost its priority. Th e information economy is global because trade in information, which is not bound by geography and is not made of matter, is global. Global economy requires compromises of state’s power and sovereignty and it deﬁ es mercantilist or protectionist strategies. Th is is not easy for some governments because the control of international trade has been one of the most important aspects of sovereign powers since well before the Industrial Revolution. People who embody intellectual capital pose a dilemma to gov-ernments. On the one hand, governments must retain their human Ardalan, Kavous. Understanding Globalization : A Multi-Dimensional Approach, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=3411322.Created from csun on 2023-01-20 04:57:43.Copyright © 2014. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
Understanding Globalization70resources in order for their nation to prosper. On the other hand, the specialized knowledge of such citizens makes them more diﬃ cult to be governed. In many areas of economic and social life, these citizens are better informed than government regulators, who are resented and opposed by an increasing number of such citizens. Th ese citizens carry the means of production in their brains and their power and numbers are growing. Governments’ dilemma is more evident in nongovern-mental organizations whose subordination to the state is essential to the sovereignty of the states. Th e government is the only organized power center, but the society and polity contain power centers, which should be given relative autonomy to produce results. Subjecting or-ganizations, whether for-proﬁ t or non-for-proﬁ t organizations, to the control of central government bureaucracy is not compatible with the new realities. II. Perspective Two or Interpretive View Th e international relationship among states is anarchic because there is no central worldwide authority above the nation-states. Th e international relationship among states is a self-help system and each state looks after its own interests. Th e state is the principal and dom-inant actor in international arena and devotes considerable eﬀ orts to the preservation of national sovereignty. Internal sovereignty refers to the state’s monopoly on the legitimate use of force within its territory, and external sovereignty refers to the state’s being free of control by any outside authority. Th erefore, power and security are the aims of states and they place considerable emphasis on their ability to survive and pursue their national interest. 2 Th e state is not only the most important international actor but also a unitary actor. Th e state sets its policies by considering subnational and transnational actors, who operate within the framework of state policies. States act rationally by maximizing the beneﬁ ts and minimiz-ing the costs when pursuing national objectives. States may be biased, have misperceptions, and lack information and capabilities to make the best decisions. Instead of making optimal value-maximizing decisions, states may settle for satisfactory decisions. Overall, states are essentially rational decision makers. Each state is most concerned about its gains vis-à-vis other states, that is, its position vis-à-vis other states. Th us, if two states are gaining wealth in absolute terms, it is the eﬀ ect of these gains on their relative power positions that is of primary importance to them. Th e states’ em-Ardalan, Kavous. Understanding Globalization : A Multi-Dimensional Approach, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=3411322.Created from csun on 2023-01-20 04:57:43.Copyright © 2014. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
Globalization and the State71phasis on relative gains is based on the view that their relationship forms a zero-sum game, that is, one state’s gain means another state’s loss. States compete with each other in supporting research and devel-opment (R&D) in high-technology sectors, restructuring industry, and deregulating ﬁ nancial markets. Th e high economic growth rates of some states are related to their success in fostering a symbiotic relationship with the competitive marketplace. Politics has priority over economics such that powerful states can structure economic relations at the international level. It is not the case that the increases in interdependence and globalization erode state control. In contrast, globalization is occurring because states permitted it to occur. Th us, the most powerful states have the capacity to either open or close world markets, and they can use globalization to improve their power position relative to smaller and weaker states. Th e hegemonic state has the ability to create an open and stable economic order that can enhance the globalization process. Global-ization can happen if the hegemonic state has both a large share of resources to support its leadership and the interest to pursue policies necessary to create and maintain an open economic order. In addition to being able to lead and having the interest to pursue globalization, the hegemon must follow policies that other major states believe are relatively beneﬁ cial. When there is no global hegemon or its power is declining, economic stability and openness become more diﬃ cult, but not impossible, to maintain. Globalization is a political process, that is, it is the successful mobi-lization of political power in unleashing the forces of globalization. It rests on active human agency. Th e shape of economic globalization is politically determined and any change in political preferences changes the shape of globalization and the accompanying social conditions. Cur-rent economic globalization is the result of a political decision made by governments to lift the international restrictions on capital. Th erefore, nation-state and territory matter even in a globalized context. States have the power to regulate economic activities within their sphere of inﬂ uence, and they are far from being impotent bystanders to the workings of global forces. In the same way that political decisions changed international economic conditions in the direction of deregula-tion, privatization, and globalization, a diﬀ erent set of political decisions can reverse the trend. Of course, it takes an international crisis brought on by globalization to provide states with the incentive to make their boundaries less porous to transnational ﬂ ows. Th at is, it is possible to Ardalan, Kavous. Understanding Globalization : A Multi-Dimensional Approach, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=3411322.Created from csun on 2023-01-20 04:57:43.Copyright © 2014. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
Understanding Globalization72reverse seemingly irresistible globalizing tendencies by politics, which is the foundation of a proper understanding of globalization. Survey of the political scene at the start of the twenty-ﬁ rst century provides convincing evidence that this is the age of the modern state. States have increasingly claimed a monopoly of the legitimate use of force and judicial regulation; established permanent military forces as a symbol of statehood as well as means of ensuring national security; consolidated tax-raising and redistributive mechanisms; established nationwide communication infrastructures; sought to systematize a national or oﬃ cial language; raised literacy levels and created a national schooling system; promulgated a national identity; and built a diverse array of national political, economic, and cultural institutions. In ad-dition, many states have tried to construct welfare institutions, partly as a means to promote and reinforce national solidarity, public health, and social security. Moreover, states have pursued macroeconomic management strategies in order to help improve and sustain economic growth with high level of employment. States seriously protect their sovereignty no matter how limited their actual control over their territories might be. Fundamental to state legitimacy is the bargaining process that they create with their citizens. National political traditions are still prevailing, political bargains can be entered into by governments and electorates, and states rule. Th e choices open to states vary dramatically depending on their location in the hierarchy of states, but at the same time, the principle of sover-eignty and its implied independence is very important to them in this age of nation-states. Modern nation-states, as political communities, strongly maintain their ability in establishing national communities of fate. National politics, and the competence with which it is performed, is at least as important as it was when states were being formed. In order to meet national objectives, developed countries try to enhance their strong state capacities and developing countries need to develop theirs. Of course, national governments are partly constrained by various pressures coming from international interdependence and economic openness. In order to understand how national governments respond to globalization one needs to understand what goes on inside the nation-state. Th e global economy not only constrains but also enables govern-ments to pursue their national policy objectives. Th e extent of the outcome depends on the domestic institutional context, including its normative and organizational aspects. Th e domestic institutions of Ardalan, Kavous. Understanding Globalization : A Multi-Dimensional Approach, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=3411322.Created from csun on 2023-01-20 04:57:43.Copyright © 2014. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
Globalization and the State73governance mediate the challenges of openness. Th ese institutions reﬂ ect ideas about the state’s economic role and public purpose, ar-rangements that produce cohesive elites, structural policy networks connecting state and society, and the representation of interests in the political and policy process. Th e global constraints are most eﬀ ective in the ﬁ nancial realm (most prominently the monetary policy) and least eﬀ ective on the social, trade, and industry and innovation policies. It should be noted that even the loss of monetary policy control under conditions of capital mobility and ﬂ oating exchange rates is not complete. It is not complete because it applies mostly to the loss of control over the exchange rate. Howev-er, with respect to the levels and types of private debt, governments can regulate domestic credit expansion. Th e loss of monetary policy control tends to apply more to the small, highly open economies, but less to the larger ones. With respect to ﬁ scal policy and its social implications, some argue that globalization places constrains on the government’s ability to run ﬁ scal deﬁ cits and follow inﬂ ationary monetary policy because global ﬁ nancial markets react negatively to inﬂ ationary policies. Th e count-er-argument is that this market-imposed constraint does not disappear in the absence of global ﬁ nancial markets. Th at is, such policies have always been subject to private sector evaluation, irrespective of capital market integration. Overall, globalization imposes macroeconomic constraints on gov-ernments, but not completely, such that governments retain autonomy in many signiﬁ cant areas. Economic interdependence has grown very signiﬁ cantly over the past several decades (though not necessarily beyond what it was a century ago), but some people overstate the consequent constraints imposed on government policy. In contrast, it is shown quantitatively that the all-powerful, bor-der-erasing globalization is far less advanced than it is claimed. By set-ting quantitative changes in trade, capital, and investment ﬂ ows within a larger perspective and evaluating their overall weight as a proportion of national economic activity it can be concluded that economies are still primarily national in scope. International ﬁ nance is the exception, where genuinely global markets (especially in foreign exchange, bonds, and derivatives) are central characters. Overall, there is little doubt that economic interdependence in trade, investment, and ﬁ nance has not displaced the national networks. It has made the system more complex such that both international and transnational networks have Ardalan, Kavous. Understanding Globalization : A Multi-Dimensional Approach, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=3411322.Created from csun on 2023-01-20 04:57:43.Copyright © 2014. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
Understanding Globalization74developed in parallel with, and complementary to, national systems of production and ﬁ nance. Th erefore, the reach of globalization is limited; it has important historical parallels that counter the notion of state power depletion; and borders and national states still matter very much. Th e discussion related to the extent of globalization is limited be-cause it has little to do with the national responses to, or capacities for managing, the challenges of economic openness. Interdependence has both enabling and constraining eﬀ ects on the nation-states, and its speciﬁ c concrete results depend to a signiﬁ cant degree on the existing national institutions. Th ree enabling aspects of globalization are as follows. Th e ﬁ rst enabling dimension of globalization is based on compe-tition and insecurity, which generates incentives for governments to strengthen the national system of innovation and social protection. Th is enabling dimension of globalization shows why it does not necessarily produce a “race to the bottom” in government taxation and spending policies, and why it does not necessarily prevent governments from pursuing their economic and social objectives. In other words, wide exposure to world markets heightens insecurity among the majority of the population, which increases demand for social protection. Consequently, governments have incentives to increase domestic compensation rather than implementing generalized cuts. Th e greater the extent of economic interdependence, the stronger the population perception of vulnerability, and the greater the probability of com-pensatory domestic structures, which reduce rather than increase the pressures of openness. Th erefore, in contrast to the expectation that capital mobility, in the form of multinational corporations and ﬁ nancial market investors, generally reduces social spending and corporate taxes to avoid the threat of exit, one must bear in mind the less noted enabling aspect of globalization. Th e heightened perception of vulnerability among national population encourages compensatory policies and actions by the government. Government responses vary with national institution-al setting. Th e enabling aspect of globalization has diﬀ erent impacts according to the prevailing normative and organizational conditions in the country. Th e second enabling dimension of globalization stems from global competition, which serves to enhance business access to national in-novation structures, to a constant pool of skilled labor, and to various Ardalan, Kavous. Understanding Globalization : A Multi-Dimensional Approach, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=3411322.Created from csun on 2023-01-20 04:57:43.Copyright © 2014. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
Globalization and the State75other infrastructural resources that businesses need. With increased exposure to competitive world markets, ﬁ rms’ needs for continuous innovation, industrial upgrading, and competent workers increase. Th erefore, rather than reducing corporate taxes and shifting the tax incidence from capital to labor, governments have strong incentives to provide the basic services to capital in exchange for the tax revenue. In contrast to the neoclassical claim about the harm brought about by state intervention, internationally oriented ﬁ rms welcome the beneﬁ ts oﬀ ered by host governments. Th e third enabling dimension of globalization is related to the inten-siﬁ ed competitive pressures that threaten to destabilize key economic sectors, such as agriculture, telecommunications, and ﬁ nance. Th ese competitive pressures urge governments to devise new policy respons-es, new regulatory regimes, and structural reforms. To respond to these challenges, governments need to develop new or strengthen existing policy networks. In some cases, it means the expansion of intergov-ernmental cooperation. In some other cases, it means the extension of relation between government and business in order to increase or improve policy input from the private sector. In still other cases, it means more eﬀ ective information sharing and policy implementation. In each case, neither government nor business autonomy is negated. In fact, they are interdependent. Th is results in a transformation in the state’s relational interdependencies with other power actors. In other words, openness creates strong pressures for maintaining or extending cooperative relationships between government and industry, information sharing, coordinated responses to collective action prob-lems, and provision of public good by the government. Instead of the transformation of public-private sector relations, in some cases, increased competitive pressures have resulted in the restructuring of central-local government relations. Globalization does indeed impact on national governance and its domestic structures. Its impact is not only, or even generally, constrain-ing, but also contributing to the expansion of governing capacities through both the transformation of public-private sector relations and the growth of policy networks. Again, the extent to which the enabling conditions of international competition and their generated political incentives for intervention are going to aﬀ ect policymaking depend to a large extent on the institutions of the nation. Globalization is a process with enabling dimensions. How these enabling dimensions aﬀ ect government policy responses depends to Ardalan, Kavous. Understanding Globalization : A Multi-Dimensional Approach, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=3411322.Created from csun on 2023-01-20 04:57:43.Copyright © 2014. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
Understanding Globalization76a large degree on speciﬁ c national institutions, which mediate them. A balanced view of globalization consists of a more realistic picture of constraining eﬀ ects and the enabling face of globalization. In summary: 1. States have signiﬁ cantly more ﬂ exibility and control in the global economy than the mainstream functionalist globalization theory allows. 2. States have ﬂ exibility and control because globalization enables as well as constrains states’ governance. 3. Within the ﬂ exibility and control that the states have, a state’s policy decision is crucially shaped by the character of domestic institutions, that is, normative orientations and organizational arrangements. Globalization has strong enabling dimensions, which over the long run are likely to prove at least as signiﬁ cant as, if not more im-portant than, its constraining aspects, depending on the institutional environment. III. Perspective Th ree or Radical Humanist View Th e spread of transworld spaces is not inconsistent with territorial spaces, and territory-based institutions, such as the state, do well in globalization. States have been the major players in the promotion and implementation of supraterritoriality, and they are key players in the contemporary governance of global ﬂ ows. 3 Of course, globalization has changed the state. Overall, changes in the state are similar to changes in capitalism, that is, the core remains entrenched while some features are modiﬁ ed. Globalization has led to ﬁ ve general changes in the state, namely: (1) the end of sovereignty; (2) the service of supraterritorial and territorial interests; (3) the reduction in the provision of public-sector social welfare; (4) the reorientation of warfare; and (5) the increase in multilateral regulatory arrangements. Th e spread of supraterritoriality has neither caused contraction nor elimination of the state, but has changed the state. Historically, the state has never been ﬁ xed, but it has always been in motion, evolving, adapting, and in transition. Th e most signiﬁ cant change in the state under globalization has involved the demise of sovereignty, which is deﬁ ned by the Westphalian international system that formalized the modern concept of sovereign statehood in 1648. Moreover, globaliza-tion has made important changes in the constituencies and policy in-struments of states. Diﬀ erent states, based on their diﬀ erent capacities, Ardalan, Kavous. Understanding Globalization : A Multi-Dimensional Approach, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=3411322.Created from csun on 2023-01-20 04:57:43.Copyright © 2014. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
Globalization and the State77have responded diﬀ erently to globalization. Developed countries have generally been able to exert far more inﬂ uence in global spaces than developing countries. State has been a major part of the contemporary accelerated glo-balization. Even in countries whose neoliberal governments have tried to shrink the public sector, states have increased their payroll, budget, and scope of regulation. But many states have contracted relative to privatizations. Neoliberal states have privatized some social security arrangements. However, state expansion in other areas has generally more than oﬀ set such contractions. Th e expansion of states is closely related to the spread of supraterri-toriality. For example, technologies of globalization have provided states with surveillance tools and military equipment, such as computerized data banks and spy satellites and long-range missiles, which are highly sophisticated and destructive. Furthermore, the increase in global ﬂ ows has persuaded some states to pursue greater environmental and consumer protection, to enact new data protection legislation, and so on. However, some states have come under particular pressure in this globalizing world. Faced with unprecedented globalization since the 1960s, states are no longer sovereign in the traditional sense of the word. In contempo-rary globalization, the state cannot exercise ultimate, comprehensive, absolute, and singular rule over their country and their foreign rela-tions due to both physical and ideational reasons. State sovereignty is deﬁ ned with respect to a certain territory, where all events occur within territorial jurisdictions or within controlled borders. Th e end of territorialism, therefore, means the end of sovereignty. Ironically, most new, post-colonial states have never been able to exercise sover-eignty because they were established during the time of accelerating globalization. In current globalizing circumstances, many changes have transcend-ed the territorial geography that underlies sovereignty. Computerized data transmissions, radio broadcasts, satellite remote sensing, and telephone calls occur: (a) at such speeds that defy advance state surveil-lance; and (b) in such quantities that defy comprehensive state tracking. Electronic mass media have reduced state’s supreme authority over language construction and education. A state does not have complete authority over transborder associations or global companies. Now, many regulations are not formulated by state; rather, they come to the state from suprastate bodies and global law. States intervene in, rather Ardalan, Kavous. Understanding Globalization : A Multi-Dimensional Approach, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=3411322.Created from csun on 2023-01-20 04:57:43.Copyright © 2014. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
Understanding Globalization78than control global trade. Th e state has lost sovereign authority over the national money supply and country’s foreign exchange rate due to the development of global currencies, credit cards, and the like. State cannot successfully assert sovereignty over the global ﬁ nancial ﬂ ows that pass through the country’s ﬁ nancial system. Transworld ecological issues, such as ozone depletion and biodiversity loss, have violated the premises of sovereignty. States have been unable singularly and fully to control the global spaces that aﬀ ect their jurisdictions. States can aﬀ ect supraterritorial activities, sometimes even substantially. However, even the most ca-pable state has not been able to exercise sovereignty over transborder relations. States cannot ﬁ x global circumstances in their territory, within which states desire to exercise absolute authority. Many tran-sworld relations aﬀ ect circumstances in a country without ever directly touching its soil. Globalization has not only overturned the material preconditions for sovereignty but it has also loosened crucial aﬀ ective underpinnings of sovereignty. On the one hand, the new geography has created various non-territorial identities and communities. Transborder loyalties to such lines as class, gender, profession, race, religion, and sexual ori-entation have diluted, rivaled, and overridden solidarity to the nation, which has traditionally provided strong support to legitimacy of state sovereignty. On the other hand, globalization has also reinvigorated local solidarities. In this age of globalization, many people have left the state as their local home in order to attend to their possibilities of community and self-determination. Moreover, citizens have given less importance to sovereign statehood and have given an increasingly high priority to values such as economic growth, human rights, and ecological integrity, none of which is bound to territory. Th e concept of sovereignty has not lost its importance in contempo-rary political discourse. Th e idea continues to play an important role, as people are divided in their beliefs regarding whether sovereignty should persist or should be retrieved. States defend their sovereignty even if the traditional meaning of sovereignty has not been in place for long. Many citizens have defended their state’s sovereignty because they associate sovereignty with their cultural identity and broader security. Th e persistent rhetoric of sovereignty is quite diﬀ erent from the reality of sovereignty. Under contemporary circumstances of global-ization, no state is able to achieve absolute, comprehensive, supreme, Ardalan, Kavous. Understanding Globalization : A Multi-Dimensional Approach, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=3411322.Created from csun on 2023-01-20 04:57:43.Copyright © 2014. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
Globalization and the State79and unilateral control of the global ﬂ ows that it encounters. Meanwhile, sovereignty is no longer seen as the primary norm of world politics in global circles of environmentalists, feminists, human rights advocates, investors, managers, religious revivalists, youth, and so on. Constituencies that states serve have also changed in current times of globalization. Previously, states represented, defended, and advanced domestic or national interests in the world and defended citizens against harmful external or foreign intrusions. Of course, sovereign states usually represented and favored the interests of certain strata within their population, such as particular classes, religious denominations, or ethnic groups, more than others. With globalization, the territorial line between inside against out-side has become blurred for states. Instead, they have become sites of collaboration and competition between a host of territorial and supraterritorial interests. For instance, transgovernmental cooperation is performed at the level of ministries, for example, health departments collaborate on the management of a certain epidemic. Some of these collaborations have increased inter-ministerial divisions within states. For instance, environment ministers from various countries have regularly com-plained about their economics ministers. Similarly, ﬁ nance ministries and central bankers have often found more views in common among themselves and with the multilateral ﬁ nancial institutions than with other ministers in their own state. In these and other ways suprater-ritorial connections have led to the deterioration of the cohesiveness of the state. Other examples of the break in the traditional pattern of states defending the national interest include the activities of contemporary states in promoting some global social movement. Some states have supported global environmentalism or human rights issue. Many gov-ernments in the South pay close attention to the priorities of transbor-der foundations and non-governmental organizations when designing and executing their development plans and policies. Another example is that states have often been sites of tension be-tween territorial and supraterritorial capital. Some states have frequent-ly served the interests of global capital in addition to, and on occasions instead of, their own national capital. Th at is, contemporary state policies have attended to the demands of global companies, transworld ﬁ nancial markets, supraterritorial mass media and telecommunica-tions, and so on. Many states have provided suﬃ ciently appealing Ardalan, Kavous. Understanding Globalization : A Multi-Dimensional Approach, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=3411322.Created from csun on 2023-01-20 04:57:43.Copyright © 2014. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
Understanding Globalization80taxation and regulation environments, in the fear that footloose global capital may desert them. Many developed countries have used trade protectionism in support of certain domestic businesses. Th e state’s willingness to serve both national and global interests can result in ambiguous and contradictory policies. Th e decline of the welfare state is linked to globalization, which currently operates under the neoliberal ideology. Th e growth of suprat-erritorial capitalist constituencies has put strong pressures on states to reduce their provision of social security. Th is is especially in contrast to the policy of states during the ﬁ rst three-quarters of the twentieth century, i.e., cradle-to-the-grave public sector guarantees of nutrition, health care, housing, education, minimum income, and other welfare needs supported by a regime of progressive taxation. Th e growth in the power of global capital signiﬁ cantly aﬀ ected the drastic change in the path of social welfare during the last decades of the twentieth century. Th e desire of transborder capital for decreased taxes and labor costs has pressured many states to reduce social welfare provisions in the name of global competitiveness. Every state has bowed to the downward pressures of neoliberal globalization on government material welfare programs. Of course, states have reduced their welfare provisions entitlements at diﬀ erent rates and to diﬀ erent extents. Moreover, certain departments within the welfare state have encountered greater limitations than others. States that tried to resurrect policies of nationalization and Keynesian demand management, experienced capital outﬂ ows and censure from global economic institutions, and decided to reverse the course of their policies. No state dares to pursue a program of radical progressive re-distribution of wealth. Th is is because those states that embarked on this path soon reversed their programs of redistribution. Meanwhile, many states have accepted and followed the neoliberal logic in the belief that growing economic inequalities are side eﬀ ects of increased eﬃ ciency and viable public ﬁ nance. It is a mistake to conclude that globalization and state welfare provision are inherently in tension. Th e downward pressures on state welfare provision are the result of neoliberal globalization in which states address social welfare individually and in competition with other states to attract global capital. An alternative policy course would be a global cooperation to underpin social security. Armed forces and the ways they are deployed by states have also changed as a consequence of contemporary widespread globalization. Ardalan, Kavous. Understanding Globalization : A Multi-Dimensional Approach, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=3411322.Created from csun on 2023-01-20 04:57:43.Copyright © 2014. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
Globalization and the State81Th e major force behind the rise of the modern state and its later pre-occupation has been the preparation for and engagement in armed struggle. Th e means and purposes of warfare have changed over time, including the period of supraterritoriality. Th e expansion of supraterritoriality has reduced incentives for interstate war, particularly where globalization has penetrated the furthest. Th is is because, interstate war serves little purpose for the global circulation of capital, transborder communities of religious, racial and class solidarity, the management of global environmental degradation, and so on. But globalization has not reduced the use of arms by the state; on the contrary, it has encouraged domestic application of armed violence by the state. National police have tried to secure the position of global companies, the implementation of neoliberal structural adjustment programs, or the privileges of the exploitative local elite whose beneﬁ ts are more intertwined with global markets than with its own country. States have used armed force to repress subnational ethnic movements or religious resurgence, both of which have often been supported by globalization. Multilateral governance arrangements are a distinctive feature of states under conditions of contemporary globalization. In contrast to earlier periods, states have had less incentive to take unilateral initiatives in world aﬀ airs. Th eir foreign policy has frequently involved interstate arrangements such as regional integration schemes, the expanded Unit-ed Nations (UN) system, and Group of Seven (G7) consultations. Th ese collaborative measures have often been applicable to states’ internal aﬀ airs as well as their interstate relations. Th e multilateral arrangements have been related to civil strife, labor policies, technology standards, industrial subsidies, local environmental protection schemes, and so on. Th rough multilateral arrangements, globalization has blurred the distinctions between domestic and foreign aﬀ airs that characterized the Westphalian state. Multilateral arrangements are interstate as well as suprastate phenomena. Although multilateral regimes have acquired characteristics beyond that of the participating states, they have as well remained an integral matter of states. Multilayered state governance and privatized governance are two additional distinguishing features of governance in the age of global-ization. Th e contemporary growth of supraterritorial spaces both has enhanced capitalism as the dominant form of production and has caused the state to lose some of its primacy in the area of governance. Ardalan, Kavous. Understanding Globalization : A Multi-Dimensional Approach, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=3411322.Created from csun on 2023-01-20 04:57:43.Copyright © 2014. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
Understanding Globalization82Th is relative decline has occurred in two ways. First, state governance has become more multilayered. Th e growth of supraterritoriality has shifted much regulatory power downward to substate authorities (i.e., at local and provincial levels) and upward to suprastate governance bodies (i.e., at regional and transworld levels). Second, globalization has shifted regulatory power to non-oﬃ cial entities. Th at is, states have received signiﬁ cant inputs from civic associations and ﬁ rms. In contemporary accelerated globalization, the complex public sector includes not only states but also multiple substate and suprastate enti-ties. Consequently, contemporary governance has become considerably more decentralized and fragmented. Various substate and suprastate entities have a relative autonomy from states, as they regularly make their own decisions without need-ing states’ approval at all times. However, local, provincial, regional, and transworld institutions have limited authority to the extent that they interact with and are shaped by states. In short, globalization has made the public sector increasingly multifaceted, with no player holding systematic primacy over the others, which is in contrast to the Westphalian system. Privatization of governance has involved business associations, nongovernmental organizations, foundations, think tanks, and even criminal syndicates. Th ey have played a major role in: (a) implementing oﬃ cial policies; (b) participating in oﬃ cial policymaking processes; and (c) formulating regulations outside oﬃ cial circles. In contemporary globalization, the post-sovereign state is a major part of a multilayered complex of regulation in which private as well as public agencies play key roles. IV. Perspective Four or Radical Structuralist View Th e capitalist world economy constitutes a historical system. It came into being in Europe in the sixteenth century. It is based on the drive to accumulate capital, the political conditioning of price levels (of capital, commodities, and labor), and the steady polarization of classes and regions (core and periphery) over time. It has developed, expanded, and covered the whole earth. It is in a long crisis as a result of its contradictory developments. 4 With its development, the capitalist world economy has created all of the major institutions of the modern world: classes, ethnic or national groups, households, and states. All of these institutions were created after capitalism came into existence, not before it. All of these Ardalan, Kavous. Understanding Globalization : A Multi-Dimensional Approach, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=3411322.Created from csun on 2023-01-20 04:57:43.Copyright © 2014. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
Globalization and the State83 institutions are consequences of capitalism, not its causes. Furthermore, all these institutions create each other. Classes, ethnic or national groups, and households are deﬁ ned by the state, through the state, in relation to the state, and in turn create the state, shape the state, and transform the state. Th ey are in constant movement, they have repet-itive regularities, but their details are always unique. In the capitalist world economy, the existence of a state is deﬁ ned by its relation to other states. Its boundaries are to a good degree accurately deﬁ ned. Th e extent of its juridical sovereignty varies from one state to another. Its real power to control the ﬂ ows of capital, commodities, and labor across its frontiers is varied. Th e real ability of the central author-ities to enforce decisions on groups operating within state frontiers is dependent on the particular state. Th e ability of the state authorities to impose their will in zones outside state frontiers varies among states. Various groups, located whether inside or outside any given state borders, constantly seek to increase, maintain, or decrease the power of the state. Each group seeks to make these changes with the hope that such changes improve the group’s ability to proﬁ t, directly or indirectly, from the operations of the world market. Th e state is an institution that most conveniently establishes market constraints in favor of particular groups. Historically, the development of the capitalist world economy began with relatively amorphous entities. Th en, more and more states were created and they started operating within the interstate system. Th eir boundaries and formal rights have been deﬁ ned with increasing clarity in the contemporary United Nations structure of international law. Th e types and characteristics of group pressures in the formation of state structures have also been increasingly deﬁ ned, such that both the legal limits on such pressures and the rational organization by groups to transcend these limits are clariﬁ ed. In this institutional network, there has been at all moments a power hierarchy of stronger and weaker states reﬂ ecting their relative power continuum, and at no moment, there has been any one state whose hegemony was not challenged, although relative hegemony has occurred for limited periods. Social institutions, in general, and states, in particular, once creat-ed, have lives of their own. Th at is, many diﬀ erent groups use them, support them, and exploit them for various, and even contradictory, motives. Moreover, permanent staﬀ s of large and structured institu-tions form a group of persons, the bureaucracies, who have a direct socioeconomic stake in the existence and promotion of the institution, Ardalan, Kavous. Understanding Globalization : A Multi-Dimensional Approach, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=3411322.Created from csun on 2023-01-20 04:57:43.Copyright © 2014. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
Understanding Globalization84quite independent of the ideological foundation of the institution and the interests of the major social forces that maintain it. Th e issue is not who has some inﬂ uence in the decision-making process of a state, rather who has critical inﬂ uence on and deﬁ nes key issues of state policy. Th e key issues are: (a) the rules governing the social relations of production, which critically aﬀ ect the allocation of surplus value; and (b) the rules governing the ﬂ ow of the factors of production—capital, commodities, and labor—within and across state borders, which critically aﬀ ect the price structures of markets. Th e change in the allocation of surplus value and the price structures of markets changes the relative competitiveness of producers and their proﬁ ts. It is the states that make these rules, and it is the stronger states that intervene in the decision-making process of weaker states when the latter attempt to make the rules according to their own preferences. Th e analysis of the political functioning of the state should be based on a solid ground. Although the consciousness of groups has some continuity, the consciousnesses themselves are not continuous. Na-tionalisms are one of the salient forms of consciousness. Th e history of nationalisms shows that nationalist movements construct conscious-ness, that is, they revive languages, create names, and emphasize cus-tomary practices that distinguish their nation from other nations. Th ey maintain such consciousness and claim that it has always been there. But in fact, one must stretch the interpretation of historical evidence to ﬁ t such partisan claims. Th is applies not only to new nations of the twentieth century but also to the old nations. Moreover, successive ideological explanation of a given name, that is, what it encompasses and what constitutes its tradition, are diﬀ erent and discontinuous. Each successive version reﬂ ects the politics of its time and they vary widely. Th e analysis of state is based on the centrality of the class struggle. Classes are groups who are deﬁ ned with respect to their positions in relation to the mode of production. In the capitalist world economy, production processes are integrated. Th e boundaries of these inte-grated production processes far exceed those of the individual states, and even subsets of production processes do not correspond to state boundaries. Th erefore, there is no reason to assume that classes are conﬁ ned within state boundaries. Even though class consciousnesses have tended historically to be national in form, the analytics of class struggle should correct this deﬁ ciency. Th e strength of state may not be visible in certain areas. Some states claim that they are strong. Th ey seek to limit opposition; they seek to Ardalan, Kavous. Understanding Globalization : A Multi-Dimensional Approach, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=3411322.Created from csun on 2023-01-20 04:57:43.Copyright © 2014. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
Globalization and the State85impose decisions on internal groups; they are ready to start war against external groups. Th ey may be merely assertions of power. States that are comprised of relatively more homogeneous strata (because of the unevenness of the distribution of classes in the world economy) may achieve via soft political methods what others strive, and perhaps fail, to achieve via coercion. Entrepreneurs who have economically strong market positions do not need the assistance of state to create monopoly positions for them, although they may need state assistance to prevent the creation of monopoly privileges in other states, which would hurt these market-strong entrepreneurs. States are institutions whose creation reﬂ ects the interests of classes in the world economy. Th ey are deﬁ ned and created within the frame-work of the modern interstate system. Th is interstate system constitutes a set of constraints on the abilities of individual state, even the stron-gest state, to make decisions. States are deﬁ ned sovereign and equal, but in fact, they are neither sovereign nor equal. More speciﬁ cally, stronger states impose on other stronger or weaker states limitations regarding their modes of political and military behavior, and limita-tions regarding their abilities to aﬀ ect the law of value, which underlie capitalism. States get involved in a lot of activities that constitute a deﬁ ance of other states. Despite the fact that the interstate system is much rule-ridden, it looks as being on the verge of anarchy. Th e rules are broken constantly and mechanisms are set up to force changes in the policies of the oﬀ ending states. Th e production processes of the capitalist world economy are built on a central antinomic relationship between capital and labor. Th e operations of the system force individuals to participate in the work process in one capacity or the other, that is, as contributors to surplus value or as receivers of it. States have played a central role in the polarization of their pop-ulation into those who accumulate appropriated surplus, that is, the bourgeoisie, and those whose surplus value is appropriated from them, that is, the proletariat. States created the laws that not only permitted and facilitated the appropriation of surplus value, but also protected the resultant appropriated surplus value by enacting property rights. Th ey created institutions that ensured the socialization of children into the appropriation roles. As economic forces brought classes into objective existence, and in relation to each other, one class sought to alter and the other class sought to maintain the unequal economic and political power Ardalan, Kavous. Understanding Globalization : A Multi-Dimensional Approach, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=3411322.Created from csun on 2023-01-20 04:57:43.Copyright © 2014. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
Understanding Globalization86 relationship between them. To this end, they had to create the necessary institutions to inﬂ uence state decisions. Th ese institutions mostly turned out, over time, to be institutions created within the boundaries of the state, leading to the worldwide deﬁ niteness of state structures. Th is has led to confusion about their self-perception and accordingly contradictory political behavior. Both the bourgeoisie and the prole-tariat are classes formed in the capitalist world economy, that is, their objective class position. Th e bourgeoisie ﬁ rst became class-conscious and it was later that the proletariat became class-conscious. Both classes found disadvantages as well as advantages to deﬁ ning themselves as world classes. Th e bourgeoisie’s class interest is in the maximization of proﬁ t in order to accumulate capital. Th erefore, the bourgeoisie sought to engage in its economic activities with no regards to geographic location or political considerations. For instance, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Dutch, English, or French entrepreneurs entered trade re-lationships, even in armaments, with their countries’ enemies during war. Furthermore, entrepreneurs frequently changed their place of residence and citizenship to pursue optimization of their gain. Th us, the bourgeoisie reﬂ ected itself in tendencies toward a world cultural style in consumption, in language, and so on. However, on the one hand, the bourgeoisie was discontent under limitations placed by a particular state; on the other hand, the bourgeoisie needed to utilize the state to strengthen its position in the market vis-à-vis competitors and to protect itself vis-à-vis the working classes. Th is meant that the world bourgeoisie had an interest in deﬁ ning itself as national bour-geoisie as well. Th e proletariat followed the same pattern. On the one hand, when the proletariat became class-conscious, it recognized that in its class struggle, the prime organizational objective has to be the unity of proletarians. Th is was because the bourgeoisie operated in the world economy and transferred sites of production whenever it found advan-tageous. Th erefore, the unity of proletariat could only be at the world level. However, the world proletarians’ unity has never really been eﬀ ective. For example, the Second International failed to maintain an anti-nationalist position during World War I. Th e reason for this lack of unity is as follows. Th e state is most readily available mechanism to improve the relative conditions of segments of the working classes, and the proletariat has almost always formed its political organization relative to state-based organizations. Furthermore, this proletarian Ardalan, Kavous. Understanding Globalization : A Multi-Dimensional Approach, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=3411322.Created from csun on 2023-01-20 04:57:43.Copyright © 2014. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
Globalization and the State87tendency has been reinforced by the successes their national organi-zations have had in attaining partial or total state power. Ironically, both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat express their consciousness at a level that does not correspond to their objective economic role. Th eir interests are intimately related to the operations of the world economy, but they seek to enhance their interests through the state, which has limited power to aﬀ ect the operations of the world economy. Th is irony constantly makes bourgeoisie and proletariats express their interests in status-group terms. In the modern world, the most eﬀ ective status group is the nation, because the nation lays claim on the moral right to control a speciﬁ c state structure. When a nation is not a state, there is potential for a nationalist movement to rise and ﬂ ourish. Of course, a nation does not breed a nationalist movement, but it is the nationalist movement that creates, or seeks to create, an entity called a nation. When nationalism is not available to serve class interests, then status-group solidarities may be formed around religion, race, language, or other particular cultural patterns. Status-group solidarities are less limited than the national class organization or consciousness and therefore have less contradictory structures. However, they may also obscure the class struggle. When key groups ﬁ nd the consequences of particular ethnic consciousnesses intolerable, there will be either re-emergence of overt class organi-zations, or redeﬁ ned status-group solidarities, that is, drawing the boundaries diﬀ erently. For instance, particular segments of the world bourgeoisie or world proletariat may shift from pan-Turkic to pan-Is-lamic to national to class-based movements over a few decades. Th ese shifts reﬂ ect not the inconsistency of their struggle, but the diﬃ culties of dealing simultaneously with objective classes of the world economy and subjective classes of a state structure. Households are the atoms of the classes and of the status groups. Th ey are partly shaped and reshaped by the objective economic dynam-ics of the world economy. Th ey are also partly shaped by regular and deliberate manipulations of the states that seek to create and change their boundaries in terms of the needs of the labor market. In turn, the households may set their priorities, resist the pressures, and assert their solidarities, either less eﬀ ectively by passive means, or more eﬀ ectively, by creating status-group and class solidarities. Th e totality of these institutions—the states, the classes, the ethnic/national/status groups, and the households—forms an institutional Ardalan, Kavous. Understanding Globalization : A Multi-Dimensional Approach, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=3411322.Created from csun on 2023-01-20 04:57:43.Copyright © 2014. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
Understanding Globalization88vortex that is both the product and the moral life of the capitalist world economy. Th ey are not pre-existing essences, but they are dependent and coterminous existences. Th ey are not segregated or separable, but they are intertwined in complex and contradictory ways. None of them determines the others, but they are avatars of each other. Over time, individual states have become stronger, but unevenly, despite the ideology of juridically equal sovereignty. Th e hierarchy of unequal powers has been ensured by the operation of the bal-ance-of-power mechanism in the interstate system. Th e states in which core economic activities took place have become stronger. Th is is the result of the eﬀ orts of groups resident in these states to ensure that the state could be used to provide quasi-monopolistic privilege for their enterprises and to prevent others residing in other states from creating similar privileges to the detriment of their enterprises. Th e states in which peripheral activities took place became either weak-er or stronger relative to the time of their incorporation. Under the pressure of the strong (core) states and local cooperating groups, the weaker states have become too weak to interrupt the economic ﬂ ows of the capitalist world economy, but strong enough to facilitate these ﬂ ows. In semi-peripheral states, groups have sought to strengthen the state in order to change the composition of the production processes that took place within their borders in order to change their relative position in the division of labor within the capitalist world economy. Th e attempts by semi-peripheral states and the counter-pressures of the core states have involved military tension in the interstate system. Th e outcome is a moving equilibrium in which all states have become stronger, but the degree of dispersion of strength has widened. Large-scale entrepreneurs have wanted states to help them both in their short-run objectives of economic gain and in their longer-run objectives of the political stability of the system. Th e longer-run objec-tives have frequently conﬂ icted with the shorter-run ones. Th ey have understood the necessity of making short-run economic compromises to maintain the long-run political superstructure of the system. Th e socialist movements ﬁ nd themselves in a parallel short-run/long-run dilemma. While the entrepreneurs wanted a weaker state in the short run, and saw the long-run necessity of having a stronger state to maintain the world capitalist system, the socialist movements want to destroy the state in the long run, but see the necessity of having a stronger state in the short run in order to protect, preserve, and enable the movement to destroy the world capitalist system. Ardalan, Kavous. Understanding Globalization : A Multi-Dimensional Approach, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=3411322.Created from csun on 2023-01-20 04:57:43.Copyright © 2014. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
Globalization and the State89 V. Conclusion Th is chapter discussed four views expressed with respect to the nature and role of globalization and state. Th e functionalist paradigm views globalization and state as eroding state power, the interpretive paradigm views globalization and state as maintaining overall state power, the radical humanist paradigm views globalization and state as dividing the power of state, and the radical structuralist paradigm views globalization and state as the domination of stronger over weaker states. Each perspective looks at the nature and role of globalization and state from a certain viewpoint. Collectively, they provide a much broader, deeper, and more balanced understanding of the phenomenon. Notes 1. For this literature, see Fonte (2011), Friedman M. (1962), Friedman and Friedman (1980), Friedman T. (2000), Fukuyama (1989, 1991, 1992, 1995, 1999), Hayek (1978), Lewis (2013), Locke (1964), Mises (1974), Mok and Yep (2008), Naisbitt (1995), Ohmae (1990, 1995), Ricardo (1963), Smith, A. (1910), Spencer (1972), and Westaway (2012). Th is section is based on Steger (2002) and Wriston (1992). See also Cohn (2005) and Steger (2003). 2. For this literature, see Aldrich (2009), Boyer and Drache (1996), Delawatde (2011), Duina (2006), Gainsborough (2007), Gilpin (1975, 1981, 1984, 1987, 2001), Hamilton (1966), Helleiner (1994), Hirst (1997), Hirst and Th ompson (1996, 2000), Krasner (1978, 1993, 1999), List (1916), Mann (1997), Nayar (2009), Skocpol (1985), Sodersten (2004), Veseth (1998), Waltz (1970, 1979), Weiss (1998, 2003), and Zysman (1996). Th is section is based on Cohn (2005), Held and McGrew (2002a), Steger (2002), and Weiss (2003). See also Steger (2003). 3. For this literature, see Cox (1986, 1987, 1996, 1999), El-Ojeili and Hayden (2006), Gill (1993, 1995), Gramsci (1971), Gray (1998), Held (1991, 1995a, 1995b), Held and McGrew (1993, 2002a, 2002b), Held et al. (1999), Herrman (2010), Jameson and Miyoshi (1998), Kellner (2002), Mittelman (1996a, 1996b, 2000), Paulet (2011), Sassen (1996), Schinkel (2009), Scholte (1997, 2000, 2008), and Sjolander (1996). Th is section is based on Scholte (2000). See also Cohn (2005), Held and McGrew (2002a), and Steger (2002, 2003). 4. For this literature, see Banerjee and Goldﬁ eld (2007), Bieler et al. (2006), Foster and McChesney (2004), Frank (1990, 1998), Lenin (1939), Magdoﬀ (1992), Odekon (2006), Radice (1999), Sakellaropoulos (2007), Singer (1999), Smith, T. (2006), Th omas (1997), Tsoukalas (1999), and Wallerstein (1974, 1979, 1984, 1999). Th is section is based on Wallerstein (1984). See also Cohn (2005) and Steger (2002). References Aldrich, Richard J. 2009. “Beyond the Vigilant State: Globalization and Intelligence.” Review of International Studies 35, no. 4: 889–902. Ardalan, Kavous. Understanding Globalization : A Multi-Dimensional Approach, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=3411322.Created from csun on 2023-01-20 04:57:43.Copyright © 2014. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
Understanding Globalization90 Banerjee, Debdas, and Michael Goldﬁ eld. eds. 2007. Labor, Globalization and the State: Workers, Women and Migrants Confront Neoliberalism . New York: Routledge. Bieler, Andreas, Werner Bonefeld, Peter Burnham, and Adam David Morton. 2006. Global Restructuring, State, Capital and Labor . New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Boyer, Robert, and Daniel Drache. eds. 1996. States against Markets: Th e Limits of Globalization . New York: Routledge. Cohn, Th eodore H. 2005. Global Political Economy: Th eory and Practice . New York: Pearson Education, Inc., Longman. Cox, Robert W. 1986. “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond Internation-al Relations Th eory.” In Neoliberalism and Its Critics , ed. Robert O. Keohane, 204–54. New York: Columbia University Press. . 1987. Production, Power, and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of History . New York: Columbia University Press. . 1996. “A Perspective on Globalization.” In Globalization: Critical Reﬂ ec-tions , ed. James H. Mittelman, 21–30. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers. . 1999. “Civil Society at the Turn of the Millennium: Prospects for an Alter-native World Order.” Review of International Studies 25, no. 1: 3–28, Delawatde, Jacobus. 2011. “The Return of the State?” European Review 19, no. 1: 69–91. Duina, Francesco. 2006. Th e Social Construction of Free Trade: Th e European Union, NAFTA, and MERCOSUR. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. El-Ojeili, Chamsy, and Patrick Hayden. 2006. Critical Th eories of Globalization. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Fonte, John. 2011. Sovereignty or Submission: Will Americans Rule Th emselves or Be Ruled by Others? New York: Encounter Books Foster, John Bellamy, and Robert W. McChesney. 2004. Pox Americana: Exposing the American Empire . New York: Monthly Review Press. Frank, Andre Gunder. 1990. “A Theoretical Introduction to 5,000 Years of World-System History.” Review 13, no. 2: 155–248. . 1998. ReORIENT: Global Economy in the Asian Age . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Friedman, Milton. 1962. Capitalism and Freedom . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Friedman, Milton, and Rose Friedman. 1980. Free to Choose: A Personal Statement . New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Friedman, Th omas. 2000. Th e Lexis and the Olive Tree . London: Harper Collins. Fukuyama, Francis. 1989. “Th e End of History?” National Interest 16: 3–18. . 1991. “Liberal Democracy as a Global Phenomenon.” PS: Political Science and Politics 24, no. 4: 659–64. . 1992. Th e End of History and the Last Man . New York: Free Press. . 1995. “Reﬂ ections on the End of History, Five Years Later.” History and Th eory 34, no. 2: 27–43. . 1999. “Second Th oughts: Th e Last Man in a Bottle.” National Interest 56 (Summer): 16–44. Gainsborough, Martin. 2007. “Globalization and the State Revisited: A View from Provincial Vietnam.” Journal of Contemporary Asia 37, no. 1: 1–18. Gill, Stephen, ed. 1993. Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ardalan, Kavous. Understanding Globalization : A Multi-Dimensional Approach, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=3411322.Created from csun on 2023-01-20 04:57:43.Copyright © 2014. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
Globalization and the State91 . 1995. “Globalization, Market Civilisation, and Disciplinary Neoliberalism.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 24, no. 3: 399–423. Gilpin, Robert G. 1975. U.S. Power and the Multinational Corporation: Th e Political Economy of Foreign Direct Investment . New York: Basic Books. . 1981. War and Change in World Politics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. . 1984. “Th e Richness of the Tradition of Political Realism.” International Organization 38, no. 2. . 1987. Th e Political Economy of International Relations . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. . 2001. Global Political Economy . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks , ed. and trans. Quintin Hoare, and Geoﬀ rey Nowell Smith. New York: International Publishers. Gray, John. 1998. False Dawn: Th e Delusions of Global Capitalism . New York: New Press. Hamilton, Alexander. 1966. “The Report on the Subject of Manufactures, December 5, 1791.” In Th e Papers of Alexander Hamilton , Vol. 10, ed. Harold C. Syrett. New York: Columbia University Press. Hayek, Friedrich A. 1978. New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of ideas . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Held, David. 1991. “Democracy, the Nation and the Global System.” Economy and Society 20, no. 2: 138–72. . 1995a. Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance . Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. . 1995b. “Democracy and the New International Order.” In Cosmopolitan Democracy: An Agenda for a New World Order , eds. Daniele Archibugi, and David Held, 96–120. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Held, David, and Anthony McGrew. 1993. “Globalization and the Liberal Demo-cratic State.” Government and Opposition 28, no. 2: 261–85. . 2002a. Globalization/Anti-Globalization . Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. , eds. 2002b. Th e Global Transformation Reader: An Introduction to the Globalization Debate, Second Edition. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Held, David, Anthony McGrew, David Goldblatt, and Jonathan Perraton. 1999. Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Helleiner, Eric. 1994. States and the Reemergence of Global Finance . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Herrman, Peter. 2010. “Globalization Revisited.” Society and Economy 32, no. 2: 255–75. Hirst, Paul. 1997. “Th e Global Economy: Myths and Realities.” International Aﬀ airs 73, no. 3: 409–25. Hirst, Paul, and Graham Th ompson. 1996. “Globalization: Ten Frequently Asked Questions and Some Surprising Answers.” Soundings 2: 47–66. . 2000. Globalization in Question: Th e International Economy and the Possibilities of Governance . Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Jameson, Fredric, and Masao Miyoshi. 1998. Th e Cultures of Globalization . Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Kellner, Douglas. 2002. “Theorizing Globalization.” Sociological Theory 20, no. 3: 285–305. Ardalan, Kavous. Understanding Globalization : A Multi-Dimensional Approach, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=3411322.Created from csun on 2023-01-20 04:57:43.Copyright © 2014. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
Understanding Globalization92 Krasner, Stephen D. 1978. Defending the National Interest: Raw Materials Investment and U.S. Foreign Policy . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. . 1993. “Economic Interdependence and Independent Statehood.” In State in a Changing World: A Contemporary Analysis , eds. R.H. Jackson, and A. James. Oxford: Clarendon. . 1999. Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Lenin, V. I. 1939. Imperialism: Th e Highest Stage of Capitalism . New York: Inter-national Publishers. Lewis, Linden, ed. 2013. Caribbean Sovereignty, Development and Democracy in an Age of Globalization . New York: Routledge. List, Friedrich. 1916. Th e National System of Political Economy , trans. Sampson S. Lloyd. London: Longmans, Green. Locke, John. 1964. Two Treatises of Government . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Magdoﬀ , Harry. 1992. “Globalization—to What End?” In Socialist Register , ed. R. Miliband and L. Panitch, 44–75. London: Merlin. Mann, Michael. 1997. “Has Globalization Ended and Rise and Rise of the Nation-State?” Review of International Political Economy 4, no. 3: 472–96. Mok, Ka Ho, and Ray Yep. 2008. “Globalization and State Capacity in Asia.” Paciﬁ c Review 21, no. 2: 109–20. Mises, Ludwig. 1974. Planning for Freedom . South Holland, IL: Libertarian Press. Mittelman, James H., ed. 1996a. Globalization: Critical Reﬂ ections . Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers. . 1996b. “Th e Dynamics of Globalization.” In Globalization: Critical Reﬂ ec-tions , ed. James H. Mittelman, 1–19. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers. . 2000. Th e Globalization Syndrome: Transformation and Resistance . Princ-eton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Naisbitt, John. 1995. Global Paradox: Th e Bigger the World Economy, the More Powerful Its Smallest Players . London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing. Nayar, Baldev Raj. 2009. Th e Myth of the Shrinking State: Globalization and the State in India . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Odekon, Mehmet. 2006. “Globalization and Labor.” Rethinking Marxism 18, no. 3: 415–31. Ohmae, Kenichi. 1990. Th e Borderless World: Power and Strategy in the Interlinked World Economy . New York: Harper Business, a division of HarperCollins Publishers. . 1995. Th e End of the Nation-State: Th e Rise of Regional Economics . New York: Free Press. Paulet, Gerard. 2011. “Legitimacy and Globalization.” Philosophy and Social Criticism 37, no. 3: 313–23. Radice, Hugo. 1999. “Taking Globalization Seriously.” In Global Capitalism versus Democracy: Socialist Register 1999 , ed. Leo Panitch and Colin Leys, 1–28. New York: Monthly Review Press. Ricardo, David. 1963. The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation . Homewood, IL: Irwin. Sakellaropoulos, Spyros. 2007. “Toward a Declining State? The Rise of the Headquarter State.” Science and Society 71, no. 1: 7–32. Sassen, Saskia. 1996. Losing Control? New York: Columbia University Press. Ardalan, Kavous. Understanding Globalization : A Multi-Dimensional Approach, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=3411322.Created from csun on 2023-01-20 04:57:43.Copyright © 2014. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
Globalization and the State93 Schinkel, Willem, ed. 2009. Globalization and the State: Sociological Perspectives on the State of the State . New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Scholte, Jan Aart. 1997. “Global Capitalism and the State.” International Aﬀ airs 73, no. 3: 427–52. . 2000. Globalization: A Critical Introduction . New York: St. Martin’s Press, Inc. . 2008. “Deﬁ ning Globalization.” World Economy 31, no. 11: 1471–502. Singer, Daniel. 1999. Whose Millennium? Th eirs or Ours? New York: Monthly Review Press. Sjolander, Claire Turenne. 1996. “Th e Rhetoric of Globalization: What’s in a wor(l)d?” International Journal 51, no. 4: 603–16. Skocpol, Th eda. 1985. “Bringing the State Back In: Strategies of Analysis in Current Research.” In Bringing the State Back In , ed. Peter E. Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and Th eda Skocpol. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smith, Adam. 1910. Th e Wealth of Nations . London: Dent & Sons, Everyman’s Library. Smith, Tony. 2006. Globalization: A Systematic Marxian Account . Boston, MA: Brill. Sodersten, Bo, ed. 2004. Globalization and the Welfare State . New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Spencer, Herbert. 1972. On Social Evolution . ed. J. D. Y. Peel. Chicago, IL: Uni-versity of Chicago Press. Steger, M.B., 2002. Globalism: Th e New Market Ideology . New York: Rowan & Littleﬁ eld Publishers, Inc. . 2003. Globalization: A Very Short Introduction . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Th omas, Caroline. 1997. “Globalization and the South.” In 1997, Globalization and the South , eds. Caroline Th omas, and Peter Wilkin, 1–17. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Tsoukalas, Konstantinos. 1999. “Globalization and ‘Th e Executive Committee’: Reﬂ ections on the Contemporary Capitalist State.” In Global Capitalism versus Democracy: Socialist Register 1999 , eds. Leo Panitch, and Colin Leys, 56–75. New York: Monthly Review Press. Veseth, Michael. 1998. Selling Globalization: Th e Myth of the Global Economy . Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Wallerstein, Emmanuel. 1974. The Modern World-System , 2 vols. London: Academic Press. . 1979. Th e Capitalist World Economy . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. . 1984. Th e Politics of the World-Economy . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. . 1990. “Culture as the Ideological Battleground of the Modern World System.” In Global Culture: Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity , ed. Mike Featherstone, 31–55. London: Sage Publications. Waltz, Kenneth N. 1970. “Th e Myth of National Interdependence.” In Th e Interna-tional Corporation , ed. Charles P. Kindleberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. . 1979. Th eory of International Politics . Reading: Addison-Wesley. Weiss, Linda. 1998. Th e Myth of the Powerless State: Governing the Economy in a Global Era . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Ardalan, Kavous. Understanding Globalization : A Multi-Dimensional Approach, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=3411322.Created from csun on 2023-01-20 04:57:43.Copyright © 2014. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
Understanding Globalization94 , ed. 2003. States in the Global Economy: Bringing Domestic Institutions Back In . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. . 2003. “Introduction: Bringing Domestic Institutions Back In.” In States in the Global Economy: Bringing Domestic Institutions Back In , ed. Linda Weiss, 1–33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Westaway, Jennifer. 2012. “Globalization, Sovereignty and Social Unrest.” Journal of Politics and Law 5, no. 2: 132. Wriston, Walter B. 1992. Th e Twilight of Sovereignty: How the Information Revo-lution is Transforming Our World . New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Zysman, John. 1996. “Th e Myth of a ‘Global’ Economy: Enduring National Founda-tions and Emerging Regional Realities.” New Political Economy 1, no. 2: 157–84. Ardalan, Kavous. Understanding Globalization : A Multi-Dimensional Approach, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=3411322.Created from csun on 2023-01-20 04:57:43.Copyright © 2014. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
This question has already been tackled by one of our writers and a good grade recorded. You can equally get high grades by simply making your order for this or any other school assignment that you may have.
Pressed for time to complete assignments or when you feel like you cannot write, you can purchase an
essay on our website. Some students also want model papers to use as samples when revising or
writing. There are also students who approach our essay writing service to beat deadlines. We handle
every type of homework, assignment, and academic writing tasks. You can buy college essays and other
assignments here. At a glance, here are some reasons students prefer our website.