To what extent has globalisation reshaped international
politics?
• Globalisation refers to the emergence of a complex web of interconnectedness that means that our lives are increasingly shaped by decisions that are made a great distance away. Distinctions are commonly drawn between economic, cultural and political forms of globalisation. The impact of globalisation on politics has been the subject of considerable debate, however. Liberals tend to argue that globalisation has had dramatic and farreaching impact on international politics, while realists and others claim that the international system remains substantially unchanged.
• Liberals and especially so-called ‘hyperglobalisers’ portray globalisation as a profound, even revolutionary, shifts in international politics that have intensified since the 1980s. The impact of globalisation has been greatest on the state and on sovereignty. Traditionally, international politics operated through a system of sovereign and autonomous states. However, the interconnectedness that globalisation has fostered makes state borders increasingly ‘porous’, meaning that states are penetrated by external influences to a much greater extent than previously occurred. This can certainly be seen in the case of global capital markets and an increasingly interlocking global capitalist system (‘borderless world’). Modern state are thus ‘post-sovereign’ states. This has been particularly evident in economic affairs through the impact of global capital markets and the creation of an interlocking capitalist economy, sometimes seen as creating a ‘borderless world’. The decline of the state is also reflected in the greater importance of non-state actors, including transnational corporations, NGOs, terrorist organisations, transnational criminal organisations and so forth. Furthermore, the interconnectedness and interdependence that globalisation has spawned has changed relations between and amongst states, creating stronger pressure towards co-operation and integration. Growing interdependence has shifted the focus of global politics away from a concern with issues of war and peace, and forced other issues onto the foreign-policy agenda, notably the environment, poverty and development, and human rights. It has also led to a shift in policy-making responsibility from states to international or intergovernmental bodies. The trend towards regional integration and to the strengthening of global governance can therefore be seen as a clear consequence of globalisation.
• However, globalisation sceptics, who include realists and some on the traditional or ‘old’ left, argue that the impact of globalisation has been greatly exaggerated. Sceptics point out, for example, that the overwhelming bulk of economic activity still takes place within, not across, national boundaries. National economies, in other words, are not as irrelevant as globalisation theorists usually suggest. States therefore remain the principal actors on the world stage. Only a tiny proportion of states (‘weak’ or ‘failed’ states) are unable to control what happens within their borders. Furthermore, the trend towards regional and global governance does not spell the demise of the nation-state. In the first place, intergovernmental institutions may have grown in number but they remain weak and usually ineffective because control continues to reside with individual states. Second, the growth of regional and international organisations does not necessary imply the decline of state power, as these tend to be instruments through which states, and especially prominent states, seek to achieve their interests.
• Globalisation refers to the emergence of a complex web of interconnectedness that means that our lives are increasingly shaped by decisions that are made a great distance away. Distinctions are commonly drawn between economic, cultural and political forms of globalisation. The impact of globalisation on politics has been the subject of considerable debate, however. Liberals tend to argue that globalisation has had dramatic and farreaching impact on international politics, while realists and others claim that the international system remains substantially unchanged.
• Liberals and especially so-called ‘hyperglobalisers’ portray globalisation as a profound, even revolutionary, shifts in international politics that have intensified since the 1980s. The impact of globalisation has been greatest on the state and on sovereignty. Traditionally, international politics operated through a system of sovereign and autonomous states. However, the interconnectedness that globalisation has fostered makes state borders increasingly ‘porous’, meaning that states are penetrated by external influences to a much greater extent than previously occurred. This can certainly be seen in the case of global capital markets and an increasingly interlocking global capitalist system (‘borderless world’). Modern state are thus ‘post-sovereign’ states. This has been particularly evident in economic affairs through the impact of global capital markets and the creation of an interlocking capitalist economy, sometimes seen as creating a ‘borderless world’. The decline of the state is also reflected in the greater importance of non-state actors, including transnational corporations, NGOs, terrorist organisations, transnational criminal organisations and so forth. Furthermore, the interconnectedness and interdependence that globalisation has spawned has changed relations between and amongst states, creating stronger pressure towards co-operation and integration. Growing interdependence has shifted the focus of global politics away from a concern with issues of war and peace, and forced other issues onto the foreign-policy agenda, notably the environment, poverty and development, and human rights. It has also led to a shift in policy-making responsibility from states to international or intergovernmental bodies. The trend towards regional integration and to the strengthening of global governance can therefore be seen as a clear consequence of globalisation.
• However, globalisation sceptics, who include realists and some on the traditional or ‘old’ left, argue that the impact of globalisation has been greatly exaggerated. Sceptics point out, for example, that the overwhelming bulk of economic activity still takes place within, not across, national boundaries. National economies, in other words, are not as irrelevant as globalisation theorists usually suggest. States therefore remain the principal actors on the world stage. Only a tiny proportion of states (‘weak’ or ‘failed’ states) are unable to control what happens within their borders. Furthermore, the trend towards regional and global governance does not spell the demise of the nation-state. In the first place, intergovernmental institutions may have grown in number but they remain weak and usually ineffective because control continues to reside with individual states. Second, the growth of regional and international organisations does not necessary imply the decline of state power, as these tend to be instruments through which states, and especially prominent states, seek to achieve their interests.