The uncertainty of the nation-state's continued viability in light of the many effects of globalization has led to a large amount of dialogue on the subject. In particular, aspects of the global economy are frequently referenced to when discussing possible decreases in power. Some of the primary trends are increased levels of FDI, the growing amount of production lines that cross borders, influences of technology and the internet, and increasingly global flows of labor. These have certainly made it difficult for the nation-state to retain power over its domestic policies. In many instances, the power of the nation-state has ever increasing constraints being placed on it. In some cases, but not all, this leads to a weakening of state power as an economic choice becomes unavailable, such as regulating FDI on the internet. There are also cases in which the nation-state changes without necessarily loosing power, such as the turn towards credible treats and the prominence of non-state actors. There is also a strong possibility that globalization's economic effects influence different areas to different degrees. Within the developed world, the increasing integration can strengthen some nation-states as it weakens others. In the case of the global south, it's possible that by missing out on many economic benefits of globalization they are simultaneously being excluded from it's repercussions for state power. On the other hand, the level of nation-state power in these countries is skewed. It's hard to say whether a nation-state in sub-saharan Africa is losing economic power or it simply never had it in the first place. This paper will focus on the negative implications of the state's economic power form the limiting qualities ...
... middle of paper ...
...does not strongly endanger the nation-state, and in some cases may make a few states stronger, the tables will turn quickly the nation-state will not be able to adapt quickly enough without sacrificing further power or sovereignty. There are also implications for the nation-states ability to govern in light of globalization and its integration. In the realm of sovereignty, there has been and will continue to be a rise in the prominence of non-state actors and previously non-important states. With non-state actors, the weakening of the state is not guaranteed, while the rise of developing countries does at least provide for a lessening of the power differential. Essentially, the potential for the weakening of the nation-state is very strong economically and probable politically, but a great deal remains to influence this process that open up both possibilities.
In a nonstate world, the United State faces a number of challenges. The NSS explains the United States national interest and what we seek in the world. There are two challenges the U.S may face in the nonstate world of 2030: security and the economy. These two national interest will be affected in a nonstate world. A state takes the lead in attempting to defend the physical security of the population, ensures the economic welfare of its citizens, provides a focus for loyalty and identity, and claims sovereignty (Viotti & Kauppi, 2013). So sharing this with non-state actor will be a challenge in a nonstate world.
Globalization is a force that has affected both unitary and federal systems around the world. Individual states have adapted to trade within these international markets in order to experience economic prosperity. While globalization has affected national economic structures, it has also taken a foothold on public policies within states. However, how these policies are affected varies from state to state. As
...). Therefore, if liberty rights and rights to goods and services are violated in various states, then how can Nussbaum expect to see the central capabilities guaranteed in such states? Another negative aspect about placing obligations or establishing guarantees from states is that some may lack the power to fulfill those obligations (O’Neill 435) For example, underdeveloped states or the deemed failed states lack the economic resources and political stability to do so. Others don’t necessarily need to be in a similar situation for failing as duty-bearers. States regarded as being strong in the international community may encounter enforcement problems. Even so when they cannot guarantee liberty rights to their constituents as do many authoritarian regimes. As a result, O’Neill suggests reconsidering whether all second-order obligations should be assigned to states.
The first distinction is between states that fail because of a lack of relevant capacities and those that fail to promote the interests of all their inhabitants through political choice, often with the intention of benefiting the incumbent regime and its supporters at the expense of another group within the state. Robert Mugabe’s ongoing manipulation of ZANU—PF and state power in Zimbabwe is a paradigmatic example of a regime, choosing to deny basic rights to certain segments of its population in an attempt to bolster regime security. The dynamics in this case are somewhat different from instances where a regime may well want to restore order to part of its territory but lacks the relevant capacities to do so. These dynamics are apparent in, for instance, the Ugandan control of formal and/or informal markets. In this view, weak or failing state institutions provide an environment from which such warlords and ‘spoilers’ can profit. The third set of contingent factors concerns the political economy of state failure, especially the adoption by governments of ‘bad’ macroeconomic policies resulting in fiscal deficits and balance of payments crises, and the paradoxical effects of structural adjustment policies encouraged by a variety of international donors. As Nicolas van de Walle has argued, both of these factors encouraged a ‘hollowing out’ of the state which, in turn, increased ‘the chances that minor political incidents and disputes could cause the descent into failure.’ Such political economies did not, however, automatically produce failed states. Hence, although Zaire/the DRC
Globalization exists when neither distance nor international boundaries obstruct economic transactions. Furthermore, globalization increases political relations among a wide variety of people and nations. Globalization, according to L. Mosley “disregards political boundaries” (Mosely, 2007, p. 107); it establishes a sense of openness and acceptance throughout corresponding countries. In “The Political Economy of Globalization”, Layna Mosely asks the question: “Does economic globalization alter the capabilities of national governments. Globalization does benefit countries financially and increase “overall national welfare”, but how does globalization influence governments? (Mosely, 2007, p. 107) According to N.Klien, Globalization and economic prosperity work correspondingly with national reform, he discusses this correlation with globalization and its involvement in South Africa. With a disgruntled political structure, a state regardless of resources and potential can still endure collapse. Political unrest in South Africa has resulted in turmoil throughout the state; political instability and restrictions implemented on various associations (WTO, GATT) has made it difficult to succeed. I believe that globalization, rather then harming the nation state is actually facilitating it; the existence of domestic associations can reject or accept any notion of globalization. Globalization has surely made an impact to both developing and developed nations, only causing them to adapt to these circumstances.
The recurrent issues on the real effects of globalization to the creation of social policies in Global South countries continue to fuel various debates in political, sociological and economic arena, as its influence in the social sector grows extensively. These issues provoke attacks claiming that globalisation only protects the welfare of Western countries and continue to take advantage of those in the Global South. It is almost always thought to be essential to a country’s progress and cooperation with international affairs. Contrary to this, is globalisation really beneficial to the “Third World” countries, as it brings them to modernization and liberalism, or it turned to be a destructive force that pulls down these countries? Its positive effects are obvious in developed nations, but the administrations of Global South countries remain incompatible and ineffective in imposing social policies to take advantage of this multilateral phenomenon. This paper aspires to tackle the positive and negative influences of globalisation in social policy making of Global South countries, and the reasons why after so much attempts, Global South countries are still too far from the standard of living that Global North countries enjoy.
Most people feel that globalization has great advantages or benefits and that it is the answer to world unity. This is somewhat true. But along with these benefits, there are also quite a few problems or costs which may coexist. One major problem is that it weakens the administrative power of states. First, borders are no longer boundaries, especially with respect to information, the flow of money, and crime. Second, a number of problems can only be discussed in collaboration with other countries. There is also criticism with respect to corruption and lack of integrity. And finally, some may believe that the state is forced to renounce some of the ac...
Globalization and the increasing role of non-state actors have shifted the position of states, the traditional “main players” in global governance. However, whether this change undermines states is debatable. In one sense, states’ roles have somewhat diminished: Non-governmental entities – namely transnational corporations (TNC), but also global non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and others – have an increasing voice in global policy debates, which may lessen states’ influence in governmental affairs. But in several other key ways, states’ retain their powerful role. For example, states remain the key negotiators and entities in major global governance entities. Additionally, states retain compulsory power over their subjects or constituents, a form of control that new players in global governments have generally not obtained.
When people such as writers, philosopher, and scientists of the past would imagine and predict what the world would be like in the twenty-first century, most thought of a glorious advanced human civilization. A civilization with a stable and unified global government and global economy that is beneficial to all. It seems that now, in year 2011, we are far from a stable international community. With a vast majority of people living without food, clean water, and basic political rights, the future envisioned 100 or 200 years ago is still far away. There are numerous nations with either weak or failed states. Since the people living in these states are usually suffering enormous hardships, something needs to be done. This leads to a few central questions like, how can a weak state be made stronger? What strategy is most likely to be effective? What would it take to turn a weak or failed state into one with sufficient strength to carry out the main functions of a state? All of these questions will be answered in order as this paper is read. Before diving into these questions, it is important to examine the key features/characteristics of a weak state.
Globalization has produced winners and losers and the international institutions created to govern the process have and continue to further the interests of the winners. While actors who have been able to engage fully with the process have benefitted, others have not done so well and in most cases have been left worse off. This is as a result of the interplay of power in the global system which generates unequal social privileges for parties involved. The argument of this paper is that global governance is simply an enforcement of the powerful in the global arena which has led to the production of winners and losers in the globalization process.
The reaction of the nation state towards the impact of globalisation can take two routes. Firstly, the route towards protectionism where in nation states try to protect domestic markets from the cyclical downturns of the international markets by introducing stricter trade barriers and restricting free movement of goods and workers. However, considering that the integrated markets bring with it several benefits of international trade and also contribute financially deficit welfare states by utilising a labour force that is international, protectionist measures my result in closing of the state not only from such benefits but also from the movement of labour forces thereby reducing its productivity. In contrast, given that globalisation is an economic reality, nation states must provide a welfare state that caters not only to local specificities but to an international and diverse community where policies are aimed at ensuring a minimum safety net for all of its citizens that will help overcome the externalities of the globalised market. This may also be regarded as a formative stage of political
Why Nations Fail takes an in depth look into why some countries flourish and become rich powerful nations while other countries are left in or reduced to poverty. Throughout this book review I will discuss major arguments and theories used by the authors and how they directly impact international development, keeping in mind that nations are only as strong as their political and economical systems.
Globalization, love it or hate it, but you can’t escape it. Globalization may be regarded as beneficial from an economic and business point of view, but however cannot be perceived the ditto when examined from the social sciences and humanities side of it. Globalization can be argued as a tool for economic growth, advancement and prosperity through co-operation between the developed and developing countries. The pro-globalization critics argue that the benefits that globalization brings to developing nations surpasses or outcasts the negative impacts caused by globalization and may even go a step further to state that it is the only source of hope for developing nations to prosper and stand out. However, the real question to be asked is as to what extent are the positives argued upon without taking into account the negative aspects of globalization towards developing countries. Moreover, how many developing countries out of many are exactly benefiting or even prospering from globalization is another question to consider. Therefore, my paper will dispute that indeed growth and advancement provided by globalization to developing countries is beneficial in short-term, but in the long-run, it will only bring upon negative impacts and challenges due to the obstacles involved such as exploitation of labour and resources, higher increase in poverty, and effects of multi-national corporations on local businesses and the economy, and to an extent the effects on the developing country itself.
This essay will describe the characteristics of the modern nation-state, explain how the United States fits the criteria of and functions as a modern nation-state, discuss the European Union as a transnational entity, analyze how nation-states and transnational entities engage on foreign policy to achieve their interests, and the consequences of this interaction for international politics.
There is an undeniable fact that there has been a rise in globalization. It has become a hot topic amongst the field of international politics. With the rise of globalization, the sovereignty of the state is now being undermined. It has become an undisputed fact that the world has evolved to a new level of globalization, the transferring goods, information, ideas and services around the globe has changed at an unimaginable rate. With all that is going on, one would question how globalization has changed the system that is typically a collection of sovereign states. Do states still have the main source of power? What gives a state the right to rule a geographically defined region? It is believed by many that due to the introduction of international systems and increasing rate of globalization, the sovereignty of the state has been slowly eroded over time. My paper has two parts: First, it aims to take a close look at how globalization has changed the way the economy worked, specifically how it opened doors for multinational corporations to rise in power. Second, to answer the question, is it possible for it to exist today? And even so, should it?