Globalisation Viewpoints Flashcards
globalisation viewpoints
hyperglobalisers
global sceptics
transformationalists
liberals
realists
(neither view denies globalisation, they simply differ over the extent to which it has impacted the globe and international relations)
basic overview of the three viewpoints of globalisation
hyperglobalisers — aligned with liberalism, globalisation is inevitable and irreversible due to technology, it is leading to a stateless world
global sceptics — aligned with realism, regionalism is more important than globalisation, globalisation is nothing new
transformationalists — changes overlay a static international system, offers a more balanced view of globalisation, a bridge between the hyperglobalisers overstatement of globalisation and the sceptics dismissal of the significance of globalisation
hyperglobalisers: main ideas about globalisation
hyperglobalisers are the chief believers in globalisation and regard globalisation in a positive and revolutionary light
their ideas emerge from the liberal view of globalisation
globalisation has not been exaggerated — humankind is truly entering into a new age and we are living in a truly globalised world of economic interdependence, political cooperation and a global monoculture
globalisation is a consequence of advances in technology, we are moving towards a ‘borderless world’ due to technological progress
in this borderless world, state borders are more permeable than ever before to goods, people, capital and ideas
Philip Bobbitt, an academic and lawyer, referred to the state being “hollowed” out by globalisation, as supranational interests and decisions challenge the importance of nation states
hyperglobalisers: what power shift is globalisation creating?
it is creating a revolutionary shift in the structures of global power, which will ultimately make the nation state obsolete
greater economic integration, instantaneous global communication, the growing influence of TNCs and the rise of non state actors have combined to challenge the centrality of the state in international relations
the state is increasingly having to share influence with other global actors and can no longer determine its own future, having to work within the economic and financial parameters established through globalisation
we are now living in a ‘post-sovereign state’ world
the end result of such trends is greater global governance and perhaps at some point, a world government which would possess sovereign authority over the world
hyperglobalisers: why is globalisation inevitable?
hyperglobalisers believe that globalisation is inevitable due to advances in technology
globalisation is inevitable as it is the logical extension of capitalism and the global market
there is no going back from globalisation, the world can only become more interconnected and interdependent, as seen in the rise of TNCs and regional institutions like the EU
some theorists differ on whether hyperglobalisation will be a good or bad thing — it can have various effects, but either way globalisation is happening and cannot be reversed
hyperglobalisers: effect of globalisation on the state
state sovereignty has been significantly impacted by globalisation in all its forms and this decline in state sovereignty has led them to cooperate
globalisation is creating a new era in history where both the importance and the authority of the nationstate is decreasing due to the economic logic of the global market….
- the state’s autonomy is in decline as its ability to manage strategic economic activities decreases due to the rise of TNCs, such as Nike and Apple, as well as regionalisation and global governance
- national economic strategies are unworkable in a global context and resistance to global markets is seen as futile and damaging
- markets have triumphed over states, delivering worldwide and growing prosperity
what three key benefits do hyperglobalisers see in globalisation?
hyperglobalisers see 3 key benefits of globalisation….
- the creation of a single global market through globalisation will bring wealth to all
- growing economic interdependence makes the cost of war too great, thus creating peace
- the widening and deepening of interconnectedness will increase international understanding, spread the ideas of liberal democracy and a human rights culture — this may create a truly global civilisation (Francis Fukuyama)
consequences of globalisation, according to hyperglobalisers
- decline in state autonomy and sovereignty
- growing global prosperity
- reduction in conflict as the cost of war is too great
- spread of liberal democracy
- the ‘borderless world’ will become a reality as the concept of the state becomes irrelevant (Kenichi Ohmae)
- globalisation has seen a growth in nonstate actors such as TNCs, NGOs and terrorist organisations
critique of hyperglobalisers
global sceptics challenge hyper globalisers’ viewpoint, arguing that it is unbalanced and exaggerated
it is inaccurate to claim that national governments are impotent and incapable of determining economic and other policies as most economic activity still takes place within the state borders
policymakers are not dominated by economic and technological forces — values and ideological perspectives also shape the decisions made by states
governments still play a large role in attracting inward investment and improving education, suggesting states are still highly important
governments have chosen to pool their sovereignty and work together to temper the effects of globalisation and related problems like terrorism and international crime — sovereignty is not declining, the role and significance of the state has simply been altered
pooling sovereignty give states more power and make them more effective rather than rendering them impotent as it enables them to tackle global problems that they cannot tackle alone
the end of state sovereignty is a myth, as seen in the US decision to invade Iraq
recent developments have reasserted the central importance of the state in securing national borders (e.g. against migrants, terrorists)
global sceptics: main ideas about globalisation
see much of globalisation as a myth and argue that the so-called integrated global economy does not exist
they question the extent to which globalisation is new and whether it has really challenged the authority of the state
globalisation has been exaggerated — particularly because most economic activity still takes place within the state, national economic policies are still highly relevant, TNCs are still primarily tied to their home nationstate and international trade and capital flows are not a new phenomena
they point to 1870 to 1914 as the highpoint of globalisation, suggesting that there is nothing new or revolutionary about globalisation and high levels of international trade or cross-border capital flows — during this period there were dramatic advances in telegraphic communication, the size and speed of ships and Britain’s commitment as a global hegemony advancing free trade liberalism
the ineffectiveness of political cooperation also demonstrates that globalisation has been exaggerated
in reality, regional, national and local economies are far more significant than the ‘global economy’
states are still the principal actors in the international system
modern day globalisation has failed to create a more global community
global sceptics: why does the integrated global economy not exist?
there is no global integrated economy as the majority of the global population, especially in the South, are becoming increasingly marginalised rather than being linked into the global economy
states are not bound by economic forces they cannot control — as seen in Theresa May’s post Brexit commitment to controlling UK borders even at the expense of losing access to the European Single Market
one of Trump’s first executive actions was to withdraw the USA from TPP, which had been designed to deepen economic ties between member states and dramatically reduce tariffs
global sceptics: the argument that international institutions and organisations do NOT weaken state sovereignty
the trend towards regionalisation and global governance remains weak as sovereignty still resides within states
regional and international institutions are not a sign of state weakness, but are bodies through which states strive to grow their own power and objectives, they are merely the vehicle by which states increase their own power
globalisation is a product of sovereign states agreeing to come together to increase their own power and influence, therefore it does not decrease state sovereignty — they use it to their advantage by pooling their influence on the world stage
states do not have to accept the authority of international institutions — as seen in the collapse of the Doha Round of WTO negotiations in which developing countries refused to continue to open up their markets without reciprocal Global North arrangements for agriculture
global sceptics: further criticisms of globalisation
the idea that globalisation is inevitable and that there is no alternative is an ideology that has been constructed to allow western liberal capitalist powers to advance their own interests and agenda
for example, by pressing for the weakening of organised labour and the scaling down business regulations
globalisation is a way in which western capitalist countries assert their dominance over weaker countries — it clearly does not benefit everyone equally
critique of global sceptics
huge advances in technology have made the world a much smaller and more integrated place
globalisation has not been exaggerated — economies are integrated into the world system, as seen in the rise of global economic governance institutions as well as global financial crises in which states cannot isolate themselves
countries are working more collaboratively, as seen in the rise of international institutions
there is a global flow of values, ideas and information
Heywood argues it is difficult to sustain the idea that globalisation today is merely a continuation of patterns seen in the past because goods, capital, information and people now move around the world more freely than ever before
this has inevitable and significant consequences for economic, cultural and political life
there is clear evidence of growing globalisation, which challenges the sceptic view that globalisation has been exaggerated
transformationalists: main ideas about globalisation
offer a middle path between hyperglobalisers and global sceptics
they argue that significant changes have occurred due to globalisation but the basic international system has not been fundamentally changed — therefore, the impact of globalisation should not be exaggerated
acknowledge that globalisation has had a deep impact on state sovereignty: national governments are changing and being challenged by non state actors
although they do not believe that globalisation signals the decline of the state, instead the state is continually having to adapt to the challenges globalisation presents
globalisation can divide as much as it integrates — it can create a sense of distance as the power that shapes local communities becomes increasingly remote
interconnectedness has increased in terms of breadth, intensity and speed and we are living in an increasingly connected world
the influence of TNCs has grown but states still retain the right to determine fiscal, trade and monetary policy, as illustrated by the bilateral trade deals President Trump favours