Who’s Afraid of China Inc.?: analyze the factors that influence free trade.

9/8/2020 4. The political dimension of globalization - Very Short Introductions

https://www-veryshortintroductions-com.cowles-proxy.drake.edu/view/10.1093/actrade/9780198779551.001.0001/actrade-9780198779551-chap… 1/11

Publisher: Oxford University Press Print Publication Date: Apr 2017 Print ISBN-13: 9780198779551 Published online: Apr 2017 DOI: 10.1093/actrade/9780198779551.001.0001

Globalization: A Very Short Introduction (4th edn) Manfred B. Steger

Previous Edition (3 edn) Next Edition: 5th edn Latest edition (5 edn)

4. The political dimension of globalization Manfred B. Steger

https://doi-org.cowles-proxy.drake.edu/10.1093/actrade/9780198779551.003.0004 <https://doi-org.cowles-proxy.dr

ake.edu/10.1093/actrade/9780198779551.003.0004>

Published in print: 27 April 2017

Published online: 27 April 2017

Abstract

Political globalization refers to the intensification and expansion of political interrelations across the globe. ‘The

political dimension of globalization’ considers how these processes raise an important set of political issues

pertaining to the principle of state sovereignty, the growing impact of intergovernmental organizations, and the

future prospects for regional and global governance, global migration flows, and environmental policies affecting

our planet. Contemporary globalization has led to a permeation of the traditional territorial borders of nation-states

and fostered the growth of supraterritorial social spaces and institutions that, in turn, unsettle both familiar political

arrangements and cultural traditions. Will the final outcome of political globalization be the emergence of a

‘cosmopolitan democracy’?

p. 62

9/8/2020 4. The political dimension of globalization - Very Short Introductions

https://www-veryshortintroductions-com.cowles-proxy.drake.edu/view/10.1093/actrade/9780198779551.001.0001/actrade-9780198779551-chap… 2/11

Political globalization refers to the intensification and expansion of political interrelations across the globe. These processes

raise an important set of political issues pertaining to the principle of state sovereignty, the growing impact of

intergovernmental organizations, and the future prospects for regional and global governance, global migration flows, and

environmental policies affecting our planet. Obviously, these themes respond to the evolution of political arrangements

beyond the framework of the nation-state, thus breaking new conceptual and institutional ground. After all, for the last two

centuries, humans have organized their political differences along territorial lines that generated a sense of ‘belonging’ to a

particular nation-state.

This artificial division of planetary social space into ‘domestic’ and ‘foreign’ spheres corresponds to people’s collective

identities based on the creation of a common ‘us’ and an unfamiliar ‘them’. Thus, the modern nation-state system has rested

on psychological foundations and cultural assumptions that convey a sense of existential security and historical continuity,

while at the same time demanding from its citizens that they put their national loyalties to the ultimate test. Nurtured by

demonizing images of ‘outsiders’, people’s belief in the superiority of their own nation has supplied the mental energy

required for large-scale warfare—just as the enormous productive capacities of the modern state have ↵ provided the

material means necessary to fight the ‘total wars’ of the last century.

Contemporary manifestations of globalization have led to the greater permeation of these old territorial borders, in the process

also softening hard conceptual boundaries and cultural lines of demarcation. Emphasizing these tendencies, commentators

belonging to the camp of globalizers have suggested that the period since the late 1960s has been marked by a radical

deterritorialization of politics, rule-making, and governance. Considering such pronouncements premature at best and

erroneous at worst, sceptics have not only affirmed the continued relevance of the nation-state as the political container of

modern social life but have also pointed to the emergence of regional blocs as evidence for new forms of territorialization.

Some of these critics have gone so far as to suggest that globalization is actually accentuating people’s sense of nationality.

As each group of global studies scholars presents different assessments of the fate of the modern nation-state, they also

quarrel over the relative importance of political and economic factors.

Out of these disagreements there have emerged three fundamental questions that probe the extent of political globalization.

First, is it really true that the power of the nation-state has been curtailed by massive flows of capital, people, and technology

across territorial boundaries? Second, are the primary causes of these flows to be found in politics or in economics? Third, are

we witnessing the emergence of new global governance structures? Before we respond to these questions in more detail, let

us briefly consider the main features of the modern nation-state system.

The modern nation-state system

The origins of the modern nation-state system can be traced back to 17th-century political developments in Europe. In 1648,

the Peace of Westphalia concluded a lengthy period of religious wars ↵ among the main European powers following the

Protestant Reformation. Based on the newly formulated principles of sovereignty and territoriality, the ensuing model of self-

contained, impersonal states challenged the medieval mosaic of small polities in which political power tended to be local and

personal in focus but still subordinated to a larger imperial authority. The centuries following the Peace of Westphalia saw the

further centralization of political power, the expansion of state administration, the development of professional diplomacy,

and the successful monopolization of the means of coercion in the hands of the state. Moreover, nation-states also provided

the military means required for the expansion of commerce, which, in turn, contributed to the spread of this European form of

political rule around the globe.

p. 63

p. 64

9/8/2020 4. The political dimension of globalization - Very Short Introductions

https://www-veryshortintroductions-com.cowles-proxy.drake.edu/view/10.1093/actrade/9780198779551.001.0001/actrade-9780198779551-chap… 3/11

The modern nation-state system found its mature expression at the end of the First World War in US President Woodrow

Wilson’s famous ‘Fourteen Points’ based on the principle of national self-determination. But Wilson’s assumption that all

forms of national identity should be given their territorial expression in a sovereign ‘nation-state’ proved to be extremely

difficult to enforce in practice. Moreover, by enshrining the nation-state as the ethical and legal pinnacle of his proposed

interstate system, he unwittingly lent some legitimacy to those radical ethnonationalist forces that pushed the world’s main

powers into the Second World War. Wilson’s other idea of a ‘League of Nations’ that would give international cooperation an

institutional expression was eventually realized with the founding of the United Nations in 1945 (see Illustration 9). While

deeply rooted in a political order based on the modern nation-state system, the UN and other fledgling intergovernmental

organizations also served as catalysts for the gradual extension of political activities across national boundaries, thus

simultaneously affirming and undermining the principle of national sovereignty.

9. The Security Council of the United Nations in session.

As globalization tendencies grew stronger during the 1970s and 1980s, it became clear that the international society of

separate ↵ states was rapidly turning into a global web of political interdependencies that challenged conventional forms

of national sovereignty.

In 1990, at the outset of the First Gulf War, US President George H. W. Bush announced the birth of a ‘new world order’

whose leaders no longer respected the idea that cross-border wrongful acts were a matter concerning only those states

affected. Did this mean that the modern nation-state system based on national sovereignty and autonomy was no longer

viable?

The demise of the nation-state?

Globalizers respond to this question affirmatively. At the same time, these observers consider political globalization a mere

secondary phenomenon driven by more fundamental economic and technological forces. They argue that politics has been

rendered almost powerless by an unstoppable techno-economic juggernaut that will crush all governmental attempts to

p. 65

9/8/2020 4. The political dimension of globalization - Very Short Introductions

https://www-veryshortintroductions-com.cowles-proxy.drake.edu/view/10.1093/actrade/9780198779551.001.0001/actrade-9780198779551-chap… 4/11

↵ reintroduce restrictive policies and regulations. Endowing economics with an inner logic apart from, and superior to,

politics, these commentators look forward to a new phase in world history in which the main role of government will be to

serve as a superconductor for global capitalism.

Pronouncing the rise of a ‘borderless world’, globalizers seek to convince the public that globalization inevitably involves the

decline of bounded territory as a meaningful concept for understanding political and social change. Consequently, they

suggest that political power is located in global social formations and expressed through global networks rather than through

territorially based states. In fact, they argue that nation-states have already lost their dominant role in the global economy. As

territorial divisions are becoming increasingly irrelevant, states are even less capable of determining the direction of social

life within their borders. For example, since the workings of genuinely global capital markets dwarf their ability to control

exchange rates or protect their currency, nation-states have become vulnerable to the discipline imposed by economic choices

made elsewhere, over which states have no practical control.

The group of globalization sceptics disagrees, highlighting instead the central role of politics in unleashing the forces of

globalization, especially through the successful mobilization of political power. In their view, the rapid expansion of global

economic activity can be reduced neither to a natural law of the market nor to the development of computer technology.

Rather, it originated with political decisions made by neoliberal national governments in the 1980s and 1990s to lift

international restrictions on capital. Once those decisions were implemented, global markets and new technologies came into

their own. The clear implication of this perspective is that national territory still matters. Hence, globalization sceptics insist

on the continued relevance of conventional political units, operating in the form of either modern nation-states or global cities

linked to national units.

The arguments of both globalizers and sceptics remain entangled in a particularly vexing version of the chicken-and-the-egg

problem. After all, economic forms of interdependence are set in motion by political decisions, but these decisions are

nonetheless made in particular economic contexts. As we noted, the economic and political aspects of globalization are

profoundly interconnected. For example, it has become much easier for capital to escape taxation and other national policy

restrictions. In 2016, the ‘Panama Papers’—a leaked set of nearly 12 million confidential documents—revealed how wealthy

individuals (including government officials) managed to evade national income taxes by hiding their assets in Panamanian

offshore companies. Moreover, global markets frequently undermine the capacity of governments to set independent national

policy objectives and impose their own domestic standards. Hence, it is difficult not to acknowledge the decline of the nation-

state as a sovereign entity and the ensuing devolution of state power to regional and local governments as well as to various

supranational institutions.

Political globalization and migration

On the other hand, the relative decline of the nation-state does not necessarily mean that governments have become impotent

bystanders to the workings of global forces. States can still take measures to make their economies more or less attractive to

global investors. In addition, they have continued to retain control over education, infrastructure, and foreign policy. But the

intensifying population movements in the era of globalization have challenged some of the most crucial powers of nation-

states: immigration control, population registration, and security protocols. Although in 2016 only 2 per cent of the world’s

population lived outside their country of origin, immigration control has become a central issue in most advanced nations.

Many governments seek to restrict population flows, particularly those originating in the poor countries of the global South.

Even in the United States, annual inflows of about 1 million legal permanent immigrants during the ↵ 2010s are less than

the levels recorded during the first two decades of the 20th century.

p. 66

p. 67

p. 68

9/8/2020 4. The political dimension of globalization - Very Short Introductions

https://www-veryshortintroductions-com.cowles-proxy.drake.edu/view/10.1093/actrade/9780198779551.001.0001/actrade-9780198779551-chap… 5/11

In order to illustrate the growing problems of nation-states to cope with increasing trans-border migration flows, let us

consider a recent example that has proven to be especially challenging: the Syrian refugee crisis. It started in March 2011

when, as part of the wider Arab Uprisings that swept across the Middle East region from Tunisia to the Gulf States, pro-

democracy protests erupted in Syria that challenged the authoritarian rule of President Bashar al-Assad and his Baath Party.

At first, Assad seemed to bow to mounting domestic foreign pressure to hold free elections and respect basic human rights.

But once Russian President Vladimir Putin signalled his support, the Syrian dictator embarked on a confrontational course

with pro-democracy demonstrators whom he vilified as ‘rebel forces’. The country quickly descended into an all-out civil war

that would kill more than 250,000 people over the next five years.

The relentless fighting triggered a humanitarian crisis of truly epic proportions. By 2016, nearly 6 million Syrians—out of a

total population of 23 million—had been internally displaced. Close to 5 million people had fled the country in search of both

personal safety and economic opportunity (see Map 4). The majority of Syrian refugees ended up in camps in the

neighbouring countries of Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and Turkey, where they received some humanitarian assistance from local

governments, international NGOs such as Mercy Corps and World Vision, and global institutions like the UN. Still, in most

cases, the massive refugee flows pouring out of Syria strained the available material resources of host communities and also

created significant cultural tensions with domestic populations who saw these ‘outsiders’ as a drain on their country’s

economic resources.

9/8/2020 4. The political dimension of globalization - Very Short Introductions

https://www-veryshortintroductions-com.cowles-proxy.drake.edu/view/10.1093/actrade/9780198779551.001.0001/actrade-9780198779551-chap… 6/11

Map 4. The Syrian Refugee Crisis.

In recent years, hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees have attempted the dangerous trip across the Mediterranean from

↵ ↵ Turkey to Greece, hoping to find a better future in the prosperous states of the European Union. Germany, in

particular, emerged as their preferred place of refuge. But in order to reach their destination, Syrian migrants had to embark

on a long route that led them from Greece across Macedonia, Serbia or Croatia, Hungary or Slovenia, and Austria, until they

finally arrived in Bavaria hoping for a swift approval of their residence applications. Even though some EU countries like

Hungary resorted to rather inhumane policies and drastic measures to keep refugees out of their territory, their hastily erected

border fences stretching over many miles ultimately proved to be ineffective in stopping such gigantic population movements.

In fact, the Syrian refugee crisis revealed the inadequacy of the EU’s current institutional immigration arrangements based on

national preferences. The so-called ‘Schengen Agreement’ that provided for open borders among EU core countries lacked

the robustness and comprehensiveness necessary for coping with this crisis situation. As policy differences among various

national governments became more pronounced, some member countries temporarily withdrew from the agreement and

reinstituted systematic border controls. Others placed arbitrary limits on the number of refugees they were willing to process

and refused to consider a more coordinated approach. Unable to deal with the huge influx of migrants, the EU faced a

predicament that laid bare deep political divisions over migration policy among member states.

Moreover, the Syrian refugee crisis also made visible existing cultural fissures and biases. For example, a number of official

government ministers in member states like Poland, Slovakia, and Hungary openly expressed their opposition to the

‘Islamization of Europe’ and stated their preference for Christian refugees. Countries like Germany and Austria, on the other

hand, experienced a polarization of public sentiments with roughly even numbers of citizens supporting or opposing more

liberal immigration ↵ measures. In the face of such politically explosive divisions, the conservative German government

under Chancellor Angela Merkel showed tremendous courage and compassion by welcoming over 1 million refugees in 2015

alone—half of whom hailed from Syria. To put this remarkable number into perspective, this means that Germany accepted

more Syrian refugees than the US refugee total for all political refugees for 2015. With additional social and political crises

mounting in the global South, the migration crisis in Europe—and in many other parts of the world—is likely to continue for

many years, even decades (see Illustration 10).

p. 69p. 70

p. 71

9/8/2020 4. The political dimension of globalization - Very Short Introductions

https://www-veryshortintroductions-com.cowles-proxy.drake.edu/view/10.1093/actrade/9780198779551.001.0001/actrade-9780198779551-chap… 7/11

10. Syrian refugees protesting at a makeshift camp in Northern Greece, March 2016.

Finally, the intensifying global migration dynamics coupled with the activities of global terrorist networks—such as the 2015

Paris attacks or the 2016 Brussels bombings by local cells affiliated with ISIL—have revealed the inadequacy of conventional

national security routines and protocols based on the modern nation-state system. The globalization of terrorist and crime

networks has forced national governments to engage in new forms of ↵ international cooperation. Thus, we can observe

a seemingly paradoxical effect of political globalization: states still matter, but at the same time they are increasingly forced

into transnational dynamics that undermine their old claims to national sovereignty and non-interference.

In summary, then, we ought to reject premature pronouncements of the impending demise of the nation-state, while also

acknowledging its increasing difficulties in performing some of its traditional functions. Contemporary globalization has

weakened some of the conventional boundaries between domestic and foreign policies while fostering the growth of

supraterritorial social spaces and institutions that, in turn, unsettle both familiar political arrangements and cultural traditions.

As the 21st century wears on, people around the world will become more conscious of the fact that they live in a transitional

era moving from the modern nation-state system to postmodern forms of global governance.

Political globalization and global governance

Political globalization is perhaps most visible in the rise of supraterritorial institutions and associations held together by

common norms and interests (see Figure G). In this early phase of global governance, these structures resemble an eclectic

network of interrelated power centres such as municipal and provincial authorities, regional blocs, international organizations,

and national and international private-sector associations.

p. 72

9/8/2020 4. The political dimension of globalization - Very Short Introductions

https://www-veryshortintroductions-com.cowles-proxy.drake.edu/view/10.1093/actrade/9780198779551.001.0001/actrade-9780198779551-chap… 8/11

G. The nation-state in a globalizing world.

Source: Jan Aart Scholte, ‘The globalization of world politics’, in John Baylis and Steve Smith (eds), The Globalization of World Politics, 2nd edn (Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 22. With permission of Oxford University Press

On the municipal and provincial level, there has been a remarkable growth in the number of policy initiatives and trans-

border links between various sub-state authorities. For example, Chinese provinces and US federal states have established

permanent missions and points of contact, some of which operate relatively autonomously with little oversight from their

respective national ↵ governments. Various provinces and federal states in Canada, India, and Brazil are developing their

own trade agendas and financial strategies to obtain loans. An example of international cooperation on the municipal level is

the rise of powerful city networks like the World Association of Major Metropolises that develop cooperative ventures to deal

with common local issues across national borders. ‘Global cities’ such as Hong Kong, London, New York, Shanghai,

Singapore, Sydney, and Tokyo sometimes are more closely connected to each other than they are to their national

governments.

On the regional level, there has been an extraordinary proliferation of multilateral organizations and agreements. Regional

clubs and agencies such as APEC or ASEAN have sprung up across the ↵ world, leading some observers to speculate

that they will eventually replace nation-states as the basic unit of governance. Starting out as attempts to integrate regional

economies, these regional blocs have, in some cases, already evolved into loose political federations with common

institutions of governance. For example, the European Community began in 1950 with French Foreign Minister Robert

Schuman’s modest plan to create a supranational institution charged with regulating French and German coal and steel

production. Half a century later, fifteen member states had formed a close community with political institutions that create

common public policies and design binding security arrangements. In the first decade of the 21st century, some of the

formerly communist countries in Eastern Europe joined the EU, which now extends as far to the East as Latvia and Romania

(see Map 5). But, as pointed out in Chapter 8, such an expansionist dynamic is by no means inexorable. The 2016 UK

referendum in favour of ‘Brexit’ is a clear illustration that globalization—and even regionalization—can be reversed.

p. 73

p. 74

9/8/2020 4. The political dimension of globalization - Very Short Introductions

https://www-veryshortintroductions-com.cowles-proxy.drake.edu/view/10.1093/actrade/9780198779551.001.0001/actrade-9780198779551-chap… 9/11

Map 5. The European Union.

On a global level, governments have formed a number of international organizations, including the UN, NATO, WTO, and

OECD. Full legal membership of these organizations is open to states only, and the decision-making authority lies with

representatives from national governments. The proliferation of these transnational bodies has shown that nation-states find it

increasingly difficult to manage sprawling networks of social interdependence.

Finally, the emerging structure of global governance has been shaped by ‘global civil society’—a social realm populated by

thousands of voluntary, non-governmental associations of worldwide reach. International NGOs like Doctors Without

Borders or Greenpeace represent millions of ordinary citizens who are prepared to challenge political and economic decisions

made by nation-states and intergovernmental organizations. ↵

One concrete example of the growing significance of NGOs in managing increasing global interconnectivity was the role of

Médicins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders during the dramatic outbreak of the Ebola virus disease in West Africa

from December 2013 to early 2016. Made up mainly of doctors and health sector workers from around the world who

volunteer their services at any location on earth, MSF/DWB provides assistance to populations in distress such as victims of

natural and man-made disasters, and armed conflict. The NGO observes neutrality and impartiality in the name of their

medical code of ethics and also maintains complete independence from all political, economic, and religious powers. When

Ebola—one of the world’s most deadly diseases that can kill up to 90 per cent of those stricken—hit in the West African

countries of Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia in late 2013, MSF/DWB were among the first responders on the ground, much

earlier than many of the aid initiatives organized by the UN or individual nation-states.

At its peak, MSF/DWF employed nearly 4,000 national staff and 325 expat staff in West Africa to combat a disease that

threatened to turn into a global pandemic, especially when isolated cases of virus transmission were reported in North

America and Europe (see Illustration 11). By the time the WHO declared an official end to the Ebola epidemic in January

2016, MSF/DWB had treated more than 10,000 patients in dozens of their management centres in the region. Given the lack

of political will by national and local governments to rapidly deploy assistance to help affected communities in West Africa,

the activities of NGOs like MSF/DWB proved to be decisive in preventing what could have easily turned into an

p. 75

p. 76

9/8/2020 4. The political dimension of globalization - Very Short Introductions

https://www-veryshortintroductions-com.cowles-proxy.drake.edu/view/10.1093/actrade/9780198779551.001.0001/actrade-9780198779551-cha… 10/11

unprecedented catastrophe of global proportions. There is no question that coordinated international steps must be taken to

better prepare the world for a future outbreak, and international NGOs will play a major role in both designing and

coordinating those efforts.

11. MSF health worker in Liberia holding a child suspected of having Ebola, October 2014.

As a result of the tough lessons learned in the struggle against pandemics and other global problems, some global studies

experts ↵ believe that political globalization might facilitate the strengthening of democratic transnational social forces

anchored in this thriving sphere of global civil society. Predicting that democratic rights will ultimately become detached

from their narrow relationship to discrete territorial units, these optimistic voices anticipate the creation of a democratic

global governance structure based on Western cosmopolitan ideals, international legal arrangements, and a web of expanding

linkages between various governmental and non-governmental organizations. If such a promising scenario indeed comes to

pass, then the final outcome of political globalization might well be the emergence of a ‘cosmopolitan democracy’ that would

constitute the basis for a plurality of identities flourishing within a structure of mutual toleration and accountability (see

Figure H).

p. 77

9/8/2020 4. The political dimension of globalization - Very Short Introductions

https://www-veryshortintroductions-com.cowles-proxy.drake.edu/view/10.1093/actrade/9780198779551.001.0001/actrade-9780198779551-cha… 11/11

Subscriber: Drake University; date: 07 September 2020

1.

2.

3.

4.

H. Incipient global governance: a network of interrelated power centres.

Source: adapted from Peter Willets, ‘Transnational actors and international organizations in global politics’, in Baylis and Smith, The Globalization of World Politics, 5th edn (Oxford University Press, 2011), p. 339. With permission of Oxford University Press

According to David Held, one of the chief academic proponents of this view, such a cosmopolitan democracy of the future

would contain the following features: ↵

A global parliament connected to regions, states, and localities;

A new charter of rights and duties locked into different domains of political, social, and economic power;

The formal separation of political and economic interests;

An interconnected global legal system with mechanisms of enforcement from the local to the global.

A number of less optimistic commentators have challenged Held’s idea that political globalization is moving in the direction

of cosmopolitan democracy. Most criticisms boil down to the charge that his benign vision indulges in an abstract idealism

that fails to engage current political tensions on the national level of public policy such as the clashing immigration

perspectives within the EU. Global governance sceptics have also expressed the suspicion that the proponents of

cosmopolitan democracy do not consider in sufficient detail its cultural feasibility. In other words, the worldwide

intensification of cultural, political, and economic interactions makes the possibility of resistance and opposition just as real

as the benign vision of mutual accommodation and tolerance of differences. To follow up on this cultural dimension of

globalization, let us turn to Chapter 5.

p. 78

p. 79