國家與全球化 The State Lives On? The State and Globalization Ta-chen Cheng November 2005 Abstract One of the most noticeable political phenomena of international politics in the past century is the proliferation of states. As globalization increases in its complexity and visibility, more and more pressure and expectations are being brought to bear on the State as an underlying perception of the international system. In this article, three ideologies of international political economy had been noted to provide different interpretations on the relationship between the State and globalization. Each, however, has its intellectual and practical weaknesses. Economic challenges from globalization do not essentially endanger the very existence of the State, although in a globalized economy, there are new expectations for the State. In the near future, the State will continue playing an important role both in national and international political economy. Keywords: globalization, international political economy Introduction In an era of rapid globalization, an interesting and significant issue is to discuss the nature and transformation of the State in international politics today. Is the State being hollowed out? Is the new global economy creating a new structure of international relations, in which the State is no longer needed? What are the implications of this? Addressing these questions shapes the content of this article. The overall challenges from globalization are various and complicated, and cannot be managed in a single article. My focus will therefore be on the issues of international political economy (IPE). The reason is quite apparent. Since the end of the Cold War, growing international trade and economic co-operation among states have made international politics more complex and diverse, as they have expanded to cover fewer traditional areas. While the strength of the State is by and by measured economically, the IPE analysis seems to be a clear approach to analyze the new role of the State in the post-Cold War international sy 房地產stem, and understand the contemporary relationships between the State and globalization. Substantially, the basic arguments of this article are: (1) The State has encountered more challenges today due to expanding economic globalization, which breaks the traditional boundaries among states. (2) Three ideologies of IPE provide different interpretations on the relationship between the State and globalization. Each, however, has its intellectual and practical weaknesses. A proper understanding is to recognize the separate significance and co-existence of the State and globalization. (3) Economic challenges from globalization do not essentially endanger the very existence of the State, although some traditional concepts of the State have been altered. In a globalized economy, there are new expectations for the State. (4) In the near future, the State will still play an important role both in national and international political economy. Three ideologies on the State-globalization relations To discuss the nature and transformation of the State in the age of globalization needs appropriate intellectual guidance. In retrospect, according to Robert Gilpin, there are three ideologies of IPE, which provide fundamentally different accounts on the State-globalization relations.[1] Economic liberalism Economic liberals are committed to free markets, minimal state intervention and global integration since it is the global market that improves maximum efficiency, human need and national welfare. They are convinced that only a global regime can be truly free and unthreatening to every nation.[2] The weakness of economic liberalism lies in its overconfidence on market mechanism. The functions of the State to satisfy political, cultural and economic needs are downplayed. Meanwhile, international trade in many situations is not always peaceful, progressive and beneficial to every state. Their propositions of free exchange, and market competition are also criticized as an excuse of capitalist exploitation. Marxism From the Marxist perspective, so-called globalization is driven by capitalists strivi 辦公室出租ng for national benefits and capital accumulation. Absolute distinctions between economic and political phenomena are misleading. The evolution of globalization, which does not develop evenly in the world will lead to the concentration of wealth in the hands of certain states. Despite their popularity in the Third World countries, Marxist notions of economic exploitation cannot persuasively explain the prosperity of international trade, economic integration and peaceful co-existence among competing states. The economic failure in the communist countries also exposes the insufficiency of the planned state-controlled economy. Economic nationalism Its central ideas are based on the primacy of the State: IPE is essentially conflicting and economic globalization shall be subject to national need. In order to pursue national interest and security, the State is allowed to exercise every means, including warfare to compete for political and economic interests. The problems of economic nationalism are fairly apparent: State competitions in the process of globalization are not at all times a zero-sum game. It is still possible for the State to benefit from a globalized and co-operated economy. Most importantly, the demand of economic interest shall not be used to justify political ambition of the State. The mistake of Nazi Germany in the Second World War is an example. Ideological insistence to a specific doctrine above mentioned, in my opinion, is not a proper approach to solve the problems this article raises. It will be necessary to re-examine the nature of the State and globalization in order to settle relevant issues. The nature of the State and globalization It is well known that the traditional international system has often been defined as a collection of states after the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648. Territorial sovereignty, equality of states, non-intervention in domestic affairs, and state consent as the basis of international legal obligation are central doctrines. In principle, the notion of a sovereign state has been interpreted on two levels: internal and external. On the one hand, internal sovereignty implies that the State has 烤肉食材 supreme jurisdiction over the people, resources, and all other authorities within the territory it controls.[3] On the other hand, external sovereignty means that territorial integrity of the State is inviolable,[4] and national status independent. Both levels are centred on the ideas of frontiers, which separate “the inside” and “the outside” of the State.[5] Fairly speaking, globalization is not a special phenomenon in the modern age. international co-operation and trade can be even retrieved as early as the era of renaissance.[6] Nevertheless, what does contemporary globalization really mean? What is its speciality? According to a study of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), “globalization is being driven by technical change, continued long-term growth in foreign investment and international sourcing, and the recent extensive formation of new kinds of international links between firms and countries. This combination is increasingly integrating national economies and changing the nature of global competition.”[7] Unlike internationalism of financial markets during the late nineteenth century, the speciality of contemporary globalization consists in the fact that a large number of independent states are involved.[8] Additionally, with unprecedented progress of technology, communication and transportation system, territorial and ideological separations of “the inside” and “the outside” are seriously shaken by the penetration of economic forces, which may re-define the landscape of public and private operations, including the statehood.[9] Facing the possible collapse of the state boundaries, it is popularly argued that states are by degree losing the autonomy in managing their domestic and international economic affairs because of the scope and intensity of global interdependence.[10] Such a threat has apparently added substance and urgency to the necessity of adopting an integrative approach to various political and economic challenges. The challenges from economic globalization In the field of IPE, globalization generally refers to the increasing spread of the capitalist economic connection and interdep 永慶房屋endence.[11] Globalization is explicitly manifested in three following interactions: the increased interlinking of national economies, particularly in terms of macroeconomic unification or interdependence; interlinking of trade, investment, production, consumption and internationalisation of corporate activities, and the global integration of financial markets. According to Susan Strange, the main forces behind globalization are of three kinds, namely: the accelerated internationalisation of production, the sharply increased mobility of capital, and the greater mobility of information.[12] Expanding globalization is particularly motivated by the developed countries. Since the last decades, the United States and other industrialised countries have begun trumpeting the benefits of globalization, the disappearance of nation-states, and the formation of a worldwide, barrier-free market. Thatcherism and Reaganism in the 1980s also provided a political rationale for free-market throughout the world.[13] It is believed that economic interests will multiply if states pursue a policy of lowering trade barriers. Moreover, globalized policies in fact have their political implications. From the perspective of the West, economic globalization refers to the possible indoctrination of its political ideology. Some classical liberals even assert that connection to the economic globalization will be the spread of democracy.[14] Generally speaking, global competitions vis-a-vis the State are basically from: (1) Markets National markets are no longer the principal units in business actions and are not even simply linked across borders. The integration of world financial markets, concurrent movements in trade liberalisation, the intensity and speed of cross-border business transactions and the diffusion of economic activities, tend to constrain the capacity of the State in managing its national economy. For instance, the State is incapable to monitor the performance of the targeted firms as the divisions between domestic and international financial sectors break down and national firms expand their business organisations abroad.[15] Other present and clear inability of the State is detected in 有巢氏房屋 the following performances: Increases in the scale, cost, and risk of the technology used in many industries have made many states inadequate to sustain the investment. It becomes more difficult to help the private sector absorb and to socialise risk through traditional policy tools such as national protectionism and export subsidies. In terms of monetary policies, states are often forced to accept imposed international rules or agreement such as international accounting standards of International Monetary Fund (IMF) or the standardisation of the Maastricht criteria in order to join a globalized market. Policy makers also need to address issues relating electronic commerce, foreign direct investment (FDI), and other competitive negotiations, which effectively penetrate national boundaries.[16] (2) New players States are no longer the sole dominant actors either in national or international economy under globalization. According to Susan Strange, after several centuries of increasing centralisation of economic decision-making within the State, there is a shift towards the diffusion of such powers.[17] The conventional image of “billiard-ball” has been changed.[18] Non-state players have prospered both in terms of their number, and possessed capacity to influence national political and economic issues. For example, powerful governmental and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and transnational corporations (TNCs or multinational corporations, MNCs) emerge to compete with all states, and provide possibilities for a new cosmopolitan world culture.[19] Even so-called private hedge funds have certain abilities to subvert national economy, just like Soro’s Quantum Fund did in England and Italy in 1992. In sum, these competitions may well have implications for the State itself to govern its own internal affairs and external relations. The loss of old reservoir of the State indeed echoes the “end of geography” scenario for the new world of financial integration.[20] Several potent accounts are pessimistically anticipating that sovereign states as central components of the modern world, may not survive intact the transition to the post-modern age. Problems and crises of globalizatio 酒店經紀n However, globalization is not a panacea curing all economic difficulties and does not sentence the State death penalty. After decades of experience, the deficits of globalization are reflected in several aspects. Firstly, while globalization manifests economic integration, it also shows the disintegration and demonstrates the unique characters of the State. The trend of regional economic grouping, the expansion of transnational production networks and unprecedented technological transformation all accentuate the significance of the State. Secondly, because these norms and order of globalization are generally imposed by the West, the process of globalization is almost synonymous to Westernisation, or “Americanisation,”[21] which is severely attacked by some non-Western countries as a “new imperialism” or “advanced capitalism.”[22] Fairly speaking, these West-oriented international policies do not actually untie economic knots of those less developed but rapidly modernised countries. In some extreme cases, rabid xenophobia and ethic violence have even significantly offset positive influences of globalization.[23] This generally leads to the restoration of strong government control and the usual centralisation of command in and after economic crises. The State thereafter has a more crucial say in its economic policies than before. Finally, in spite of these ideological considerations, globalization itself has produced several unexpected financial problems.[24] Higher interdependence implies that states are subject to higher vulnerability.[25] Collective corporations may worsen individual financial problems, for instance, an overheated economy into overall current account deficits or systematic breakdown among those with close economic relations.[26] The East Asian crisis of 1997-1998 is an example that displays the financial difficult of one country, and consequently exposed to the inadequacy of the whole financial systems in Southeast Asia. The new roles of the State Is the State being hollowed out? The answer is apparently negative mostly due to those unsolved problems at hand. More and more reflection converges to the discussion that globalization and state strength shall not be mutually antagonistic[27]: 會場佈置 While the thrust of globalization leads to the change of the traditional functions of the State, it is necessary for the State to reconstitute itself in facilitating structural transformation and in responding in a meaningful way to the economic agenda demanded domestically and internationally. What are the new roles and expectations of the State? More precisely, in my opinion, the new tasks, which are been prompted by globalization include: (1) To create informal and formal institutions or regimes that globalization needs The problem of economic globalization shall not be viewed ideologically as an excuse to pursue national protectionism or individual welfare against international trade by certain policy makers, especially in the Third World countries.[28] The State needs to reinvigorate its transformative capacity and to create new informal and formal institutions or regimes, such as mechanisms of counter-cyclical economic management, financial stabilisation, public budget control, industrial and competition regulation, and economic crime prevention. Precisely speaking, these institutions or regimes involve the acquisition of new regulatory capacity and analytical competency on the part of the state bureaucracy, a more inclusive state-business consultative mechanism, stronger institutional foundations for the effective private section, self-governance at both industry and sector levels, and systematic incorporation of additional social actors, such as labour unions, middle-class-based public-interest groups, local communities and mass media, whose interests are only partially compatible with that of the business community, in the formulation and implementation of economic policies. (2) To provide the public with more knowledge on globalization The State needs to be compatible with the framework of globalization. In the processes of economic globalization, the State survives only to the extent that it suffices public demands.[29] When these expectations are satisfied, the legitimacy and authority of the State will be possibly acknowledged.[30] As such, sustainable strategies must be adopted by the State, and cannot be designed without an appropriate understanding of IPE. What are the implications? First of all, the Stat 新成屋e shall remind its people that national interest is no longer narrowly confined to the traditional geographic boundaries. Growing integration of the world economy has led to an increase in government involvement in cross-border alliances plus a higher level of inter-governmental corporation via supra-national regulatory or facilitating bodies.[31] The trend of globalization is irresistible. Traditional and absolute state dominance will only lead to alienation from the true characters and potentialities of the State.[32] Secondly, a basic principle of inter-state trade management stresses the State's commitment to exploit its comparative advantages while at the same time trying to preserve international economic co-prosperity among nations. Competitive disadvantages out of different national regulation can be minimised if prudential policies are co-ordinated among states. Lastly, global management of the State needs not just economic competence but political transparency since the new role under globalization cannot be completed merely by the government, but also by the whole public. Open discussion can monitor the development of globalization within a state, and sometimes provides choices between competing values and goals. The State lives on Methodologically, until the variety is illuminated it will be impossible to attempt any meaningful estimates about general tendencies of globalization, in which states play a part. Basically speaking, the role of the State being as the dominant regulator of national economy and the promoter of national interest has nevertheless not been hollowed out in the trend of globalization.[33] The reasons are obvious. Firstly, globalization apparently cannot exist in a pure anarchy. The State shall be given great attention because the majority of economic activities take place inside a country’s territory, and political variables are still the principal independent variables to generate globalization.[34] Secondly, until now, it is the State that chiefly provides the legal framework in which the market can operate. While existing inequalities among nations make equal trade relationships difficult,[35] the pursuit of individual competitiveness and multiple economic equilibrium in IPE needs the State to expan 信用貸款d the scope and reach of its power and influence.[36] Thirdly, governance has become more polycentric in the present days.[37] With the legislative and military power at hand, the State is still to be relied upon as an agent to undertake internal and foreign policies. Regardless these traditional expectations, as discussed previously, the State is required to assume new responsibilities. Not only shall the State direct substantial national economic and industrial policies, for both economic and political purposes, it shall also actively enhance its international prominence through the influences of IPE policies. Finally, economic integration does not in essence change national attachment to the State. Some political scientists have even argued that as long as the national identity continues existing, the fundamental aspiration for nation state will accordingly remain unchanged.[38] Beside more and more economic problems that globalization unsettles, the plethora of other global issues like ecology, population, immigration, health, refugees, territory, human rights and cultural conflicts undoubtedly need states to negotiate with. Conclusion One of the most noticeable political phenomena of international politics in the past century is the proliferation of states. After World War Two, globalization, which is not simply about the change of economic international relations is leading to reconceptualise the roles and functions of the State. As globalization increases in its complexity and visibility, more and more pressure and expectations are being brought to bear on the State as an underlying perception of the international system. Due to the infusion of “the inside” and “out side”, the concept of the State as a territorial unit indeed has been questioned.[39] In my opinion, however, international interdependencies and globalization will increase while states will be necessary to manage them. In other words, the State, despite the degree of the penetration of globalization, will still retain its significance in the international playing field, and will not wither away, at least until the near future. ENDNOTES [1] Robert Gilpin, The Political Economy of International Relations, (Princeton: The Princeton University Press, 1987), pp.26-3 長灘島5  .
創作者介紹

1702

ud71udcjsf 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()