Explore BrainMass
Share

Globalization on the Identities

This content was COPIED from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

Post one
This assignment is to reply to my classmate weekly post.
Please read this post and give me your suggestions and opinions on the topic/content of this post. I'd like the response to be at least 250 words.
Please do not critique the content, but give your thought about the topic

To give my opinion to this week's response to the forum discussion, I do not believe that globalization will cause the "erosion of the state"theory that was introduced in this week's reading by Susan Strange. This is because while I do believe that globalization is bigger now than it ever was before, I do not believe that it will cause the so called erosion of the states. The reason for this is for there to be an erosion of state there would have to be some sort of relinquishment of the states sovereignty and this would in turn lead to a loss of identity. Even though globalization is on an up rise, and even though many countries may participate in international organizations in which many other countries participate and it may look as if they become one big organization, the states that make up the members of these organizations will still hold on to their identity that makes them a state.
This was pointed out in the beginning of the article of "The Erosion of State", The view of globalization did not concern them because in their opinion: "their state still existed, because their enterprises still belonged to them, their headquarters were still in their state, their directors were people of their national origin and their corporate culture was marketed differently from other national firms". To me these was a strong statement, because I feel that most states entering the global market or international organization will hold this type of mentality. Basically, yes they are part of large organization, but it does not erase the state that they are, their culture, language, and forms of lifestyle will still set them apart from other states. A good example of this is the European Union, all though they are joined by one financial system where they all use the same Euros, and benefit from trade tariffs, and lenient travel rules, they still maintain their identity. They are still separate states and still have control over their stats.
In analyzing the three dilemmas, these are dilemmas that I feel will also be an obstacle for globalization. The first thing to be evaluate is economy, apart from the case made in the article where the financial institutions will need financial security and a state to hold accountable, institutions such as stock exchange where there is roller coaster with global finances, States will also want keep a hand on their finances. The state's economy is after all their main resource, the way a states survives. The second is environmental, while globalization has caused for much of the deforestation for new firms being built which provide financial security, I believe that many people and countries have broken away from this, While of course it still does and is happening, many are now more in tune to preservation of their states rather than destroying them for globalization and financial benefit. The third which is political of course is the strongest I don not believe that states will easily give up their political power so easily. Things change, new governments, presidents, and dictators come into power, they may change the rules that the previous heads of states once agree too.
While I do see how the vision of globalization can be seen as a threat, take the United Nations for instance, there are many views to this organization. While many see them as an international union that is in power for the greater good, they are to be viewed as an organization that is maintain peace in the world and assist with conflict. Others see them in a totally different view, as bullies that push other nations around trying to force them to abide by their rules, questioning why do we have to abide by your rules? Also, this concept will work only if all the members will abide by the rules and regulations, for example the United States has many times broken the rules or advice of the UN, with going to war or maintaining embargos. This is why I do not believe that globalizations is a threat, because globalization exists only because of self-interest. With globalizing many states and unions join forces because there is a benefit, once there is no more benefit for the unions, the theory of globalization is out the door.
References
Strange, Susan. 1997. "The erosion of the state.". Current History 96, no. 613: 365-369, http://search.proquest.com/docview/200703704?accountid=8289.
Wolf, Martin. "Will the Nation-State Survive Globalization?." Foreign Affairs 80, no. 1 (January 2001): 178-190. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed March 9, 2016).
Piper, Richard. "Major Nation-States in the European Union." Http://www.ablongman.com/. The Ablongman, Jan. 2005. Web. 9 Mar. 2016. <http://www.ablongman.com/html/productinfo/piper/PIPER_chapt1.pdf>.

Post two
This assignment is to reply to my classmate weekly post.
Please read this post and give me your suggestions and opinions on the topic/content of this post. I'd like the response to be at least 250 words.
Please do not critique the content, but give your thought about the topic

Globalization is viewed differently in different international relations theories. Globalization recognizes the process of nation states working towards and adopting different forms of integration, including global communication and advancements in technology that are allowing nation states to share goods, money, and ideas globally. The different international relations theories address how this process and growing technology has and will continue to affect the nature of the international system. Wolf Martin explains how realists feel about the process of globalization and what realist think globalization is doing to the current international system. I was expecting the realist to have a more pessimistic view, but Martin acknowledges the process and explains that it is a choice made by a state. "Globalization can progress only as far as national policymakers will allow" (Martin 2001, 183). This concept is important for the reader to recognize because realists do not think that globalization is negatively impacting the system and will collapse the nation state. Instead, realists expect that through the growth of technology and transportation, new possibilities will arise that have the potential to change a state for better or worse. "Globalization is often perceived as destroying governments' capacities to do what they want or need, particularly in the key areas of taxation, public spending for income retribution, and macroeconomic policy" (Martin 2001, 185). Globalization has the ability to affect all of these areas, but Martin explains that governments are still able to benefit from these areas even with globalization; some will even become more beneficial. Realist Wolf Martin explains that as globalization continues to grow, governments have time and the capability of making it work in their favor. Global governance is also an important part of globalization and both need to grow together in order for states to remain effective and essential (Martin 2001).
Liberals have a different idea of how globalization affects the nations state. Liberals make the argument that globalization causes increased interaction and trade between states. For example, China and the United States created a trade agreement that allowed their relationship to prosper. Now theorists would go so far to say that China and the United States are interdependent. This interdependence also has the ability to change other aspects of nations relationships. For example, would interdependent countries be less likely to fight and more likely to talk through disagreements? In this case I would agree with liberals because I do not think interdependent states would want to jeopardize their economic stability. However, I start to disagree when liberals create the idea that interdependence, which is created by globalization, makes states less important because the global market is more important. Complex interdependence theory explains that globalization has an effect on international relations and the entire world (Keohane& Nye 1977). "Dependence means a state of being determined or significantly affected by external forces. Interdependence, most simply defined, means mutual dependence. Interdependence in world politics refers to situations characterized by reciprocal effects among countries or among actors in different countries."(Keohane& Nye, 1977: 8)
I find the realist argument most convincing because it does not over analyze and fear the process of globalization. I raise the question, how could interdependence from globalization cause a state to disregard all of its other interests? Liberals make an argument that fears interdependence because it will cause policy makers to favor policy that supports nation state interdependence. I don't see interdependence as a bad thing, especially since it makes war less likely. I firmly believe that states can and will still further their interests, like spreading democracy, even if interdependence from globalization is present. For example, the United States is interdependent with China. I think the US is able to use this to its favor and eventually convince China to adopt democracy. Therefore, globalization has helped make a positive change that is not negatively impacting a states ability to be important or effective at furthering interests. I think the most important challenge of globalization will be a states need to focus on its other interests outside of globalization. For example, the US and China are interdependent, but this relationship should not stop the US from doing things that China disagrees with. Even if the United States actions threaten the relationship.
References:
Wolf, Martin. 2001. "Will the Nation-State Survive Globalization?" Foreign Affairs 80.1: 178- 190.
Krugman, Paul. "In Praise of Cheap Labor: Bad jobs at bad wages are better than no jobs at all." Slate Magazine, http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1997/03/in_praise_of_cheap_labor.html
Keohane, Robert O., and Joseph S. Nye. 1977. Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.

Post three
This assignment is to reply to my classmate weekly post.
Please read this post and give me your suggestions and opinions on the topic/content of this post. I'd like the response to be at least 250 words.
Please do not critique the content, but give your thought about the topic
Week Six: The Demise of the State? Globalization and the decline of sovereignty
The question this week asks for a very black and white answer, but with regards to globalization and nation-states, it is not that simple of a response. The world has seen an explosion of global interdependence, intertwining economies and societies. So the question remains whether or not nation-states will cease to remain the most important actors in the world arena or have they lost their status? Again, this is a tough answer, but the argument that is most convincing is that nation-states still are important and remain a huge determining factor with globalization.
International institutions or organizations would not be able to function without the support of the nation-state especially the Great Powers of the world but on the other side of the coin, smaller and weaker nations depend heavily on the benefits of globalization. Great powers like the United States, China, and Russia all depend on each other in their own ways but rely on interdependence to make them even greater. For these great powers, their sovereignty is not threatened whereas in others they have seen an "erosion of the state." Greece has seen an erosion of the state and has needed the help of its neighbors to keep it afloat. On a side note, it's actually shocking that Wal-Mart's revenues compared to Greece's gross domestic products are almost the same amount (Stopford 1998, 16).
Martin Wolf writes that a "globalized economy could be defined as one in which neither distance nor national borders impede economic transactions" and goes on to say that this is not the case (Wolf 2001, 178). Even though all countries in some form or fashion are interdependent, borders and state identities still hold strong. Globalization has blurred some of these lines and weakened strong cultural characteristics, but the nation-state still remains. Wolf also states that "most successfully integrated economies are small, homogeneous countries with a strong sense of collective identity" (Wolf 2001, 190). In today's world, cultural identities are being threatened by the influx of refugees from neighboring nation-states.
Globalization challenges nation-states in a variety of ways, however I believe the most important challenge would have to be to a state's own government and cultural identity as previously mentioned. International institutions like the United Nations (UN) and European Union (EU) combined with Multinational Corporations (MNCs) have placed a lot of pressure on countries to conform to a more global ideal. Governments seen as too harsh or even controlling of their populace are scrutinized more than a country that attempts to follow the current trends providing more their citizens while at the same time taking away certain freedoms. Putting pressure on a nation-state can be good and bad, and it all depends on the situation.
In Susan Strange's article, she outlines how big business has taken away from the nation-state and is perhaps the biggest challenge posed by globalization. Strange makes some really good arguments but I still maintain that the nation-state will continue to be an important player in the international system. Big businesses would not survive without globalization, but they also will not survive without the backing of an established nation-state to protect its assets and resources. States have the ability to dictate a lot about how a business is ran and at the end of the day, need that nation-state.
References
Wolf, Martin. 2001. "Will the Nation-State Survive Globalization?" Foreign Affairs 80.1: 178- 190.http://ezproxy.apus.edu/login?url=http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=2&sid=51e3711e-e800-4cab-a24d-49b312b2b5ef%40sessionmgr4004&hid=4214&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=3948673
Stopford, John. 1998-1999. "Multinational Corporations," Foreign Policy 113:12-24. http://ezproxy.apus.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/224052235?pq-origsite=summon
Strange, Susan. 1997. "The erosion of the state." Current History 96.613:365-369. http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/military/docview/200703704/13DBE5970BF9082B14/5?accountid=8289

© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com March 22, 2019, 3:30 am ad1c9bdddf
https://brainmass.com/political-science/american-politics/globalization-identities-619006

Attachments

Solution Preview

Post One Response

The theory of globalization does not contribute an "erosion of the state". In fact, I feel that this idea ignores the potential gains to the State. In his article, Wolf explains that States which have embraced globalization have increased populations, advanced in the area of technologies, and diversified their markets. States can also thrive without losing their identities, economies, infrastructure, and political power. The first major issue is the suggestion that globalization will in some way rob the State of their cultural identity. Cultural identity is something that is embedded into a culture for many generations therefore, it would not be something that could be easily uprooted. In addition, the States' economies could increase or improve under globalization. It could be quite lucrative for a State to embrace globalization because of its ability to improve trade and imports. This could also lead to a better job market and the development of new industries. States may also be able to improve their infrastructure under globalization. An increase in revenue could lead to improved urbanization and industry because of the increase in buying and selling. Political power is another part of a ...

Solution Summary

This response considers the effect of globalization on the identities, infrastructure and finances of nation-states. The opposing perspectives of two international political analyst are examined including; Susan Strong and Martin Wolf.

$2.19