Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Globalization on state
Impacts of globalization on the development of nations
Role of non-state actors in globalization
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Globalization on state
In this paper I will trace the roots of the nation-state and just how globalization affects it. Using examples such as the notable European Union and United Nations, I will then explain the differences between past nation-states and current sovereign states. By discussing the global economy, as well as the role the nation-state has in creating corporations for the global economy, I will prove that globalization fails to eradicate the nation-state solely because the ideals are too capitalistic. I will then examine how the nation-state still plays a vital role in a world rapidly moving towards one market with one nation and one set of rules. With the idea of a sovereign state rapidly becoming an ideal of the past, globalization has already left its mark on the world. The main goal of globalization is to unite the globe under a single culture and government, which undermines the ideology of the nation-state, which has “citizens [which are] members of a nation living within the borders of a defined territory.” (Fulcher p. 1)Furthermore, globalization develops international relations, removing or transcending the borders of a nation-state, by economic marketing, increased labour, and transfer of information. Having the globalization movement as well as the development of nation-states both begin around the fifteenth century, it is apparent where the rivalry comes from, as well as just who is the victor in the struggle. This creates higher financial competition between a globalized country and a nation-state, as having a global open economy leads the sovereign state into a sense of “capitalist accumulation and competition” (Bresser-Pereira p. 559). Though the nation-state does not stand on equal ground with the globalization process... ... middle of paper ... ...ic culture to a nation is the foundation of a nation-state, and also the sole reason why nation-states will continue to be around for centuries, regardless of if globalization follows suit. Works Cited Bresser-Pereira, Luiz Carlos. "Globalization, Nation-state and Catching up." Revista De Economia Política 28.4 (2008): 557-76. Print. Falk, Richard A. The Declining World Order: America's Imperial Geopolitics. New York: Routledge, 2004. Print. Fulcher, James. "Globalisation, the Nation-state and Global Society." The Sociological Review 48.4 (2000): 522-43. Print. Hadar, Leon. "Commentary: The Revolt of the Political Man." The National Interest. 9 Nov. 2011. Web. 9 Nov. 2011. . Wolf, Martin. "Will the Nation-State Survive Globalization?" Foreign Affairs 80.1 (2001): 178-90. Print.
Nash, Gary and Julie Jeffrey. "Foreign Policy in a Global Age." The American People Volume Two: Since 1865. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2011. 743-744. Print.
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
The first issue which Cox raises is that of a lack of understanding of and study into the concept of empire by current research in the field of international relations (Cox 2004, p230). This element would appear to be sound, but only in so far as it relates to Cox’s other assertion that the orthodoxy of American society and academia are opposed to labelling America an empire. Within liberal dominated mediums, ‘empire’ continues to be a “dirty word” (Dowd 2009), linked as it is by the American people with the histories of German and Japanese imperial ambitions (Townsend 2009). Cox asserts that self identification with this term is avoided by even more erudite members of society, but that this reality is plainly obvious to outsiders (2004, p230).
It is somehow strange for today’s reader to find out that the situation with America’s foreign affairs hasn’t changed much. As some clever people have said, “The History book on the shelf is always repeating itself.” Even after nineteen years, Americans think of themselves as citizens of the strongest nation in the world. Even after the September the 11th. Even after Iraq. And Afghanistan.
...each into the international community. This is evident in the types of nationalism I’ve explored, both new nationalism and cosmopolitanism. They are opposing views of what nationalism is or can become in the future, but both have qualities that allow smaller nations to continue their existence in the international society. I have inadvertently expressed my opinion that nations are structurally political and that it is in the interest of their leaders to appeal to their unique traditions in order to maintain their power. Either way, the choice between these two approaches rests on the hands of the nation and its relationship with the international society. Globalization does not hinder the existence of the nation but rather helps it establish a place in the structure of power in a world which is still dominated by politically and economically dominant super powers.
Kagan, Robert. Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order. London: Atlantic, 2003. Print.
The United States is a country with a diverse existing population today; this country is known as a melting pot of different cultures, each one unique in its own respect. Culture; differentiate one societal group from another by identification beliefs, behaviors, language, traditions, Art, fashion styles, food, religion, politics, and economic systems. Through lifelong, ever changing processes of learning, creativity, and sharing culture shapes our patterns of behavior as well thinking. The Culture’s significance is so intense that it touches almost every aspect of who and what we are. Culture becomes the telescope through which we perceive and evaluate what is going on around us. Trying to define the perplexing term of culture with varying component of distinguishable characteristics is difficult to restrict. Presenly, culture is viewed as consisting primarily of the symbolic, untouched and conception aspects of human societies.
Globalization is a set a mechanisms that are altering the world order, thus escalating worldwide social relations. There are hundreds, if not thousands of ways in which globalization can be defined since it is altering every aspect of life. Nevertheless, when examining the universal structure of the global order; the world is divided into two categories the core and periphery (Steif). Basically, the world is divided per national development. In the case of inter-group relations, core states could be considered the in-group because they are directly benefiting from globalization and global wealth, hence the world powers (Steif). In contrast, periphery states can be considered the outer-group because these states have not shared in developmental advantages (Steif). The global structure of categorization per development has allowed the inter-group to be determined through capitalist pursuit and resource nationalism. Furthermore, these policies have transformed the social and economic order of the developmental states. For instance, the American culture is known to be considered the culture of consumerism. Basically, social, economic and political policies shape each other; ultimately, influencing social identity of its citizens. Furthermore, on average the core states consist of mostly western nations that share in the same political and economic structure of development. With this said, this paper will define globalization as the process of westernization and modernization and its influence in the inter-group and outer-group conflict.
Globalisation can be construed in many ways. Many sociologists describe it as an era in which national sovereignty is disappearing as a result of a technological revolution, causing space and time to be virtually irrelevant. It is an economic revolution, which Roland Robertson refers to in his book ‘Globalisation’ 1992 pg 8, as “the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole”. It is argued that globalisation allows the world to become increasingly more united, with people more conscious of ethnic, societal, civilizational and individual aspects of their lives.
“The world is a global village”, is a metaphor that was coined by the Canadian scholar Marshall McLuhan to describe the perceived experience of a smaller world resulting from the effects of modern technology, faster communication and improved transportation, despite geographical boundaries (1). The various processes that have produced this phenomenon can be called globalization. There are many definitions of the term globalization; Delbruck 1993 defined globalization as "a process of denationalization of markets, laws and politics, in the sense of interlacing people and individuals for the sake of common good"(2). Fidler 1996 aptly described globalization as a complex process of, “political and economic intercourse between different sovereign states” on the premise that such interdependence will result in states being better off and as such building stability, peace and order in the international scenario(3). Globalization has resulted in a gradual erosion of the traditional distinction of national and international activities through political, social and economic interaction between different countries, leading to a fusion or overlap of domestic and foreign policies(4). However, globalization differs from internationalization, the latter referring to a process where each country attempts to fulfil their national interest by co-operating with other countries in areas where they are incapable of achieving desired outcomes on their own(3) . Its key points are co-operation between states, while preserving sovereignty. Globalization on the other hand entails co-operation and undermines the sovereignty of nations.
One of the most vigorous debates focuses on the current status of the United States hegemony and whether or not it is in decline. This begs the question, if the United States is indeed declining in status, will it still be an influential player or not? I argue that the United States is losing its prominent position as the hegemonic leader of the world, but will still remain an influential player in global politics in the following decades to come. Its decline is an imminent result of their domestic issues, the violation of international laws and economic deficit, which have posed a grave and serious challenge for the United States. On the other hand, I propose that the United States will remain a dominant force due to its innovation, cultural influences around the world, and military prowess. In their articles, “How Americans Can Survive the rise of the Rest”, by Fareed Zakaria and “America and Europe in the Asian Century”, by Kishore Mahbubani, provides two distinctive and thought provoking arguments from a declinist perspective. However, both articles are susceptible to criticism and will be further examined in order to understand the United States prominent role.
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.
Just imagine waking up in squalor, a once prominent society, now a desolate wasteland. All because foreign interest has raped your land of its natural resources and you seen not a cent in profit. Although, globalization is unifying the worlds developed nations and is bringing commerce to nations that have struggle in past years. True, globalization has many positive effects but do the pros outweigh the cons. In this essay I will discuss Globalization ruining the integrity of many countries and also is forcing many undeveloped nations into a bind, and is causing economic distress on some developed nations. Also, due to economic globalization the nations of the world are diluting their culture, sovereignty, natural resources, safety and political system. My goal is not to change your way of thought, but only to enlighten you of the negatives of global economic expansion.
Baylis, Smith and Patricia Owens. 2014. The globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international relations. London. Oxford University Press.
Culture has been a pervasive part of humanity since the beginning of civilization. Wood (2010), professor of communications, defines culture as "the totality of beliefs, values, understandings, practices, and ways of interpreting experience that are shared by a number of people" (p 78). The way I see it, culture shapes an individual and creates their worldview. Each culture emphasizes an important aspect of the humans and displays the complexities of our species. Even though culture includes many elements, I will discuss one of Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions, Individualism, and explain how it creates a high or low context culture.