Is globalization weakening the state and eroding state autonomy, power, and/or sovereignty?

The Future of the Nation-state State Autonomy and Capacity in a Globalizing World State as the main actor in international relations, came about after Westphalia in 1648 and has evolved Careful how we use the concept of the state, it can obscure and exaggerate the magnitude of recent international developments when used as a starting point for investigation Main question: whether or not the authority and capacity of the sovereign state is eroding in the course of globalization Elements of ideal state: fixed boundaries and sovereign authority of defined territory, juridical equal of other states and a monopoly on the use of coercion within its borders State is externally and internally sovereign legal independence Great powers routinely interfere in affairs of weaker states State is an ideal, a territorially based community that emerged out of Europes feudal epoch Due to globalization, waging war is less central for states Welfare state evolving into competition state, market state, virtual state, and residual state and recently after the financial crisis a pump-priming re-regulatory state Most people governed by empires, state is a recent European invention empires expansive and lacked fixed borders The State as an Incoherent concept State is an ill-defined concept, Marx, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hegel, Hobbes each had own definition Some scholars see state as ethno-cultural polity state with nation, includes a people and their unique characteristics This doesnt apply to multiethnic/national states like the USSR or Yugoslavia institutionalizing a territorial state is tough when there are violent ethnic conflicts State is a functional unit reflects a division of labor and social specialization state building entails political and economic modernization Weber: state as a monopoly of legitimate violence within society states link with warfare and growing bureaucracy to fight war most states did not have a monopoly on force within or outside their borders however Mafia affects states ability to maintain monopoly on force, so do pirates, ethnic seperatists, and drug lords State as a set of autonomous bureaucracies separate from society Theda Skocpol

Stephen Krasner state is a bureaucratic apparatus and institutionalized legal order and an actor in its own right Fits the definition of a state but to Skocpol and Krasner society is invisible Marxists view state as an instrument of a ruling class that will wither away modern states evolved with spread of capitalism Critical theorists define state as a source of harm and focus on the negative consequences of state action Pluralist community interest-group competition, neo-pluralist and corporatist Bureaucracies compete to promote their own interests and policies state is not a unitary entity, no objective national interest Each bureaucracy has its own procedures and is responsible for some part of policy Government bureaucracies in different countries may join other bureaucracies in other countries and compete against others in their own country The Changing State

Early European states were not sovereign, no clear boundaries or who was independent Medieval Europe divided by social classes Italian city states in the end of the 15th century practiced Machiavellis version of the state where a prince served the interests of his state in a compact urban area When this style of state spread north of the Alps, became kingly states which were military extensions of kings authority France emerged out of the thirty years war as the archetypal kingly state ending religious strife and legitimated by divine right Kingly states transformed into territorial states characterized by its borders that gave it legitimacy, defense perimeter, and tax base King was no longer embodiment but minister of sovereignty Treaty of Utrecht kings recognized existence of rules within an interstate society and system of territorial states Intensification of nationalism during the French Revolution saw the state involve into the state-nation with a national ethnocultural group to act on behalf of the state The transition into nation states in mid 19th century seen as the repository of sovereignty, citizens assumed primary allegiance to their states and saw others as inferior The Contemporary State in a Globalizing World

Growing interdependence and demands by national and ethnic groups for national selfdetermination reflect changing authority and functions of states Decentralization of political authority limits functional efficiency and economies of scale but simplifies control and sustains tradition Globalization can reduce localization by spreading global values

States have to share functions with local groups, global corporations, and international organizations Sovereign boundaries have become porous Erosion of the distinction between the foreign and domestic arenas of life The role of territory has changed, global politics moving away from the Westphalian interstate system Technology has overcome geography, changed conceptions of space Cyberspace now hosts identities and authorities and markets Global capital markets takes place online corporations have home bases but operations are dispersed Trade increased between corporations rather than states Kenichi Ohmae what use are border controls in the world of the internet

States and Collective Goods Essence of states obligations is to provide collective goods even if only military security national defense, clean water Global economic competition and tech change reducing capacity and/or willingness to provide public goods Provision of military security was primary concern of the state without it social services would have developed much slower Martin Creveld ICBMs change how states can protect cities standing armies not effective Irregular and guerrilla warfare reflect political and ideological aspects of warfare rather than seizing territory States have outsourced military tasks to private security firms US in Iraq 2003 Changing nature of warfare Economic interdependence has raised the implications of warfare for states Patriotism in the west is also declining In the late 19th century, the welfare state came to prominence public provision of entitlements, regulated national economic, legal, environmental, and social activities Some critics argue that globalization is reversing the growth of states obligations to provide welfare due to increased global competition competition state emerged, key to the new role of the state is the promotion of economic activities, whether at home or abroad Cerny Privatization more prevalent education, retirement pensions, and military security Competition has changed it is now between various economic areas that utilize new technologies and produce new value domains and new customers Apple iPad Companies operate in geographically dispersed networks There isnt always a convergence in states economic and welfare policies Scandinavian industries remain competitive while providing welfare Domestic structures can modify the impact of globalization remain some differences in government spending, taxation, and public employments and capacity of states (Greece,

Spain, Italy, Ireland, and Portugal finding it necessary to cut spending to remain competitive, while Germany sees less of a need) Growing numbers of states are rent by civil strife, cannot provide even minimal services Somalia or Afghanistan cannot protect citizens from violence or provide basic needs military forces become fractured on behalf of particular leaders or factions, state cannot exercise authority and military institutions become a threat to citizens security Predatory lenders, rampant corruption, widespread poverty, income inequality, demographic pressures, fractured elites, refugee flows, vengeance-seeking groups, emigration of educated citizens, and environmental stress have caused state institutions to collapse Post-colonial states have not been able to separate different ethnic polities by drawing borders leaving conflict in a single state increased the relative attraction of non-state identities associated with religion, ethnicity, gender and clan Hamas, Hezbollah, and even drug lords and criminal networks Conclusion: The Future of the State

State autonomy eroded by globalization and increased competition for foreign investment and market share cause states to adopt policies which are attractive to transnational corporations and financial markets After the 2008 financial collapse, citizens losing confidence in their governments that are already experiencing faltering authority Critics becoming more brutal Western countries fear losing jobs to emerging economies but paradoxically have to turn to their governments to protect them once again The financial crisis resulted in central banks and governments rushing to intervene in markets to stop the Great Recession by bailing out institutions, restoring consumer confidence, enacting new regulations, and stimulating national economies state capitalist countries like Russia and China fared better in the recession than Western neoliberal countries The global response to these crises has been bailouts to banks, corporations, and countries Nicholas Sarkozy the dictatorship of the market is dead Historians will one day see that this crisis marks the real start of the 21st century where politics will return to manage national economies The crisis showed how interconnected the world has become and how important states remain and are continuing to exercise their usual tasks Developing states have more say in the global economy with participation in G-20 Opposition to immigration and the belief that the costs of free trade outweigh the benefits have increased and governments have adopted protectionist policies in reaction

Globalization weakens state autonomy in some regard, but it increases the power of political leaders who use it as an excuse to ignore domestic concerns globalization is assisted by state policies themselves so large powers have some control over it Leaders use the need to compete globally to reduce health care and social security provision Globalization actually increases autonomy of states by allying them with the interests of their nations capitalists by removing impediment of domestic interests Sovereignty is changing, does not mean the state will disappear but authority is shared among NGOs, communities, and identities The state remains but is evolved: it privatizes formerly public tasks, not as anchored in territory, and sovereignty provides fewer privileges to states but how successful they will be in adapting to future challenges is ambiguous Difficult to generalize about impact of globalization on states Abiding Sovereignty Stephen D. Krasner Argues that globalization is not historically novel and states and state sovereignty remains the same as theyve been for centuries Sovereignty has always been violated and is less absolute than theory Introduction Anarchy is the defining characteristic of any international system Distinction between international system lacking hierarchical structure of authority, and international society where there are shared rules Sovereign states have de facto autonomy and reasonable control over their borders and territory foreign powers will limit realistic options for any state but they are not controlled by foreign actors It is too early to analyze the effects of globalization and human rights pressures on the sovereign state Control and authority of states has always been contested not a unique event The status quo actors is unlikely to give up the advantages of sovereignty can abandon authority claims over issue areas they cant regulate, sovereignty can coexist with alternative institutional arrangements and strategies that are attractive to specific actors at particular moments Defining Sovereignty 4 meanings of sovereignty Interdependence sovereignty ability of states to control movement across borders

It is argued that technological changes have reduced costs of communication and transportation and states cant regulate the movement of goods, capital, people, ideas, or disease vectors and that is eroding sovereignty Governments cant conduct monetary policy due to international capital flows, cant control information due to the internet, and cant guarantee public health due to ease of travel Sovereignty not affected but rather control governments cant perform their expected regulatory duties Domestic Sovereignty ability of domestic authority structures to regulate behaviour Acceptance of or recognition of authority seen as legitimate and effective Loss of control of interdependence sovereignty also implies some loss of domestic sovereignty if a state cannot regulate movement across borders (like drugs) then it is not likely to be able to control activities within its borders Westphalian or Vattelian Sovereignty no external sources of de jure or de facto authority has a monopoly on over decision making does not intervene in internal affairs of others International Legal Sovereignty - mutual recognition Recognition awarded to juridically independent states capable of entering into voluntary contract Diplomatic immunity and the act of state doctrine protecting states from being challenged in courts of other countries Sovereignty is the ability to control transborder movements or activities within a states boundaries - A state can enjoy one type of sovereignty while missing others Somalia has legal recognition internationally but does not enjoy Westphalian sovereignty Sovereignty Contested The sovereign state system is under stress from globalization and changing international norms with respect to human rights Globalization challenges interdependence and domestic sovereignty by threatening state control Human rights norms challenge Westphalian sovereignty through implying domestic authorities are not free to set their own human rights rules within their borders States have always operated in an interdependent global environment and have never been able to perfectly regulate transborder flows Finances flowed through Europe in the middle ages and before the 19 th century to fund wars when they lacked the administrative capacity to extract finances from their own economies only recently developing sophisticated national systems for revenue collection International financial crises are hardly a new phenomenon

Baring Brothers were bailed out after speculative dealings by a broker in Singapore in 1995, and was previously bailed out in 1890 by the Bank of England after questionable loans made to Argentina 1910-1913 was a period of the largest capital flows ever, foreign investment was 53% of GDP for England, 7% for Germany, 13% for France Technological change increased the speed of communication information from New York to London went from 10 days to minutes with the telegram The gold standard encouraged long term investment by reducing exchange rate risks The gold standard made exchange rate policy feasible for the government High capital flows and sovereignty have coexisted for at least 2 centuries even if they caused problems with interdependence and domestic sovereignty International migration rates reached their highest level from the end of the Napoleonic Wars to 1914, 60 million Europeans emigrated to the new world after 1820 causing wage convergence resulting in stricter immigration policies by the US International trade increased rapidly during the 19th century The railroad and steamship reduced transportation costs and commodities with high weight-to-value ratios like grain became internationally competitive The Interwar period and WW2 slowed economic activity until trade increase after 1950 AIDS originated in Africa and spread worldwide but doesnt compare at all with the bubonic plague, smallpox, and influenza in the 20th century Spread of ideas rights of native peoples, pop culture degree of change exaggerated The internet wasnt the most drastic change in communication, the laying of transatlantic telegraph cables in 1860 was The Reformation transformed the map of Europe within a decade of Martin Luthers 95 theses No evidence that globalization has systematically undermined state control controlling transborder movements has always been a challenge Globalization and state activity has increased hand in hand modern medicine made it easier for authorities to deal with epidemics Global flows are not new, have been higher in the past than now migration higher in the 19th century than now Level of government spending up now to provide social safety nets for more open economic policies collective goods made higher levels of trade and capital flows viable The spread of international human rights norms represent another issue challenging Westphalian/Vattelian sovereignty Global human rights movements challenge the authority of the state it cant regulate relations between its people and their rulers without external interference prescribe a standard that all states must follow, cannot set any rule it pleases NGOs and international organizations have exposed illicit practices in some regimes that has translated to increased pressure from other governments and some cases of stateto-state interventions where the military has been involved

Political leaders can compromise Westphalian sovereignty European human rights regime was a treaty signed by European decision makers to create supernational human rights institutions Transnational NGOs were active in the 18th century and 19th as well abolish slavery, womens rights, worker conditions The emerging states out of the Ottoman Empire had to respect their religious minorities rights as a condition for recognition by European powers Concern about human rights came after WW2 world powers and smaller nations supported including human rights in the founding documents of the UN since then there have been more than 20 UN conventions, and Helsinki and Dayton accords The US has been successful at maintaining all elements of sovereignty but most states have had a harder time due to historical precedents for challenges to Westphalian and Interdependence sovereignty

Sovereigntys Resilience Economic, demographic, military, and ideational change has been dynamic over the last 2 centuries yet an alternative set of institutions has not replaced the rules associated with sovereign statehood If these rules are changing, they will happen gradually due to public and private preferences in pursuing their self-interests Even the Westphalian state didnt spring up overnight because of a leader or theorist, rather it emerged over time and has been adhered to in various degrees of fidelity States emerged out of medieval institutions with formally overlapping structures of authority because they could extract resources better than city states and take advantage of wealth and military power that came with technological and commercial changes Could fight wars with siege guns and naval fleets, promote economic development and control local political and military actors better than empires and establish bureaucracies to borrow from financiers and tax efficiently Changing material circumstances have led to changes in institutional structures redefined actors, states as sovereign equals No reasons to believe we are in the midst of an evolutionary transformation to new political structures and rules to eliminate the sovereign state The status quo is easier to maintain, already has stable expectations, policy is created assuming existing institutions, individuals invest in training for jobs expected to exist in the public sector, national loyalties and common cultural practices like flags and anthems, language, and holidays New arrangements mean new investments and people will have to invest in new skills, new languages, and make different choices for the education of their children Sovereignty has been violated in the past by external forces justified by protection of international order and human rights Kosovo, Greek war of independence, Balkan

wars easier for powerful states to pursue goals in some situations while adhering to conventional sovereignty in others Sovereign state actors can shed functions they cant manage a small country can give up autonomous monetary policies and adopt a foreign currency dollarization For small states, giving up authority of one area is a better outcome less inflation Big states with effective authority structures would find it more difficult to provide social and economic stability if they gave up macroeconomic authority Martin Luther and the protestant reformation provided an alternative religious rationale for secular authority European kings were reluctant to give up control over religion and weaken the legitimacy for their own regimes but after religious wars of the 16 th and 17th century they adopted religious freedom Religious freedom was a consequence of recognition that there were elements of human life the state couldnt regulate Globalization can threaten interdependence sovereignty but may simply encourage states to limit the scope of state authority and the nature of sovereignty not to find alternatives Alternative institutions and rules have developed by individual actors but coexist rather than replace sovereignty European Union, European unification to balance against Soviet Union has evolved out of dealing with specific issues The EU has territory, recognition, control, national authority, and supranational authority How it will evolve is unknown it could evolve into a federal state or just be a supranational authority It has already displaced traditional sovereignty within Europe itself international legal sovereignty no longer applies It has curtailed Westphalian sovereignty altering the structure of their domestic institutions and holding its own representatives and domestic sovereignty in regards to regulation of border movements It has displaced conventional sovereignty but it still coexists with political entities embracing conventional sovereignty Institutions change because circumstances change if contemporary rules change it will be gradual based on short term interests and choices rather than some grand plan Sovereignty rules enjoy the advantages of the status quo

New Challenges Challenges to sovereignty exist but wont displace sovereignty IMF, World Bank, WTO and others are more significant than they have been but they are beholden to their member states especially affluent ones These institutions can challenge state sovereignty of members and become more involved even if there are prescriptions against such behavior Its better for a state to accept a national financial institutions money and external involvement than be impoverished

The internet has made it easier for smaller NGOs to operate worldwide Telecommunications has made it cheaper for NGOs and possible for them to be more powerful lobbyists and sway public opinion can pressure international organizations like WTO and the authority of the state Transnational NGOs are not alternate govt structures made to change state policies, just another pressure group, do not claim to be an alternative to state authority International organizations are a product of international legal sovereignty even if they undermine Westphalian and domestic sovereignty Cyber crime may become severe, in a polity with domestic sovereignty, it can be controlled if it has weak political control requires new institutional arrangements, and neutral mutants or extraterritorial intervention by powerful states Organized hypocrisy might become more extensive when it comes to crime

Conclusion Sovereignty has never been concrete, and its different types have not always occurred together Leaders sometimes use international legal sovereignty to compromise domestic sovereignty Globalization and human rights problems are not new States have always struggled to control border flows Rulers right to establish laws and authority has always been challenged by extraneous players about international security, minority rights, and fiscal responsibility Existing arrangements create incentive to preserve status quo, new institutions can coexist with old ones States could never isolate themselves fully NGOs have more power, IOs are more prominent, cybercrime is new but they do not challenge state control Authority can be challenged but even that is not a sufficient condition to develop a new structure New arrangements could develop incrementally, but they are likely to coexist with rather than supplant convention sovereign structures