Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Globalization and
global politics
ANTHONY MCGREW
Introduction
Globalization—simply the widening, deepening, and international relations—which are constructed upon this
speeding up of worldwide interconnectedness—is a very distinction—provide at best only a partial insight
contentious issue in the study of world politics. Some—the into the forces shaping the contemporary world (Rosenau
hyperglobalists—argue that it is bringing about the in Mansbach, Ferguson, and Lampert 1976: 22).
demise of the sovereign nation-state as global forces Since it is such a ‘slippery’ and misused concept it is
undermine the ability of governments to control hardly surprising that globalization should engender
their own economies and societies (Ohmae 1995; such intense debate. Accordingly, this chapter com-
Scholte 2000). Others—the sceptics—reject the idea mences by elucidating the concept of globalization before
of globalization as so much ‘globaloney’, and argue that exploring its implications for the study of world politics.
states and geopolitics remain the principal forces shaping The chapter is organized into three main sections: section
world order (Krasner 1999; Gilpin 2001). This chapter one will address several interrelated questions, namely:
takes a rather different approach—a transformationalist What is globalization? How is it best conceptualized and
perspective—arguing that both the hyperglobalists defined? How is it manifest today, most especially given
and sceptics alike exaggerate their arguments and the events of 9/11? Is it really all that new? Section two
thereby misconstrue the contemporary world order. will discuss the ways in which globalization is contribut-
By contrast, while the transformationalist perspective ing to the emergence of a distorted global politics which is
takes globalization seriously, it acknowledges that it is highly skewed in favour of a global power elite and to the
leading not so much to the demise of the sovereign state exclusion of the majority of humankind. Finally, section
but to a globalization of politics: to the emergence of a three will reflect upon the ethical challenges posed by the
conspicuously global politics in which the traditional realities of this distorted global politics. It examines cur-
distinction between domestic and international affairs rent thinking about the conditions, and prospects, for a
is not terribly meaningful. Under these conditions more humane global politics which is both more inclusive
‘politics everywhere, it would seem, are related to politics of, and responsive to, those in greatest need in the global
everywhere else’ such that the orthodox approaches to community.
Over the last three decades the sheer scale and scope of Every day over $1.88 trillion flows across the world’s
global interconnectedness has become increasingly evi- foreign exchange markets so that no government, even
dent in every sphere from the economic to the cultural. the most powerful, has the resources to resist sustained
Worldwide economic integration has intensified as speculation against its currency and thereby the credibil-
the expansion of global commerce, finance, and pro- ity of its economic policy (see Ch. 26). In 1992 the British
duction links together the fate of nations, communi- government was forced to abandon its economic strategy
ties, and households across the world’s major economic and devalue the pound as it came under sustained attack
regions and beyond within an emerging global market from currency speculators.
economy. Crises in one region, whether the collapse of Transnational corporations now account for be-
the Argentinean economy in 2002 or the East Asian reces- tween 25 and 33 per cent of world output, 70 per
sion of 1997, take their toll on jobs, production, savings, cent of world trade, and 80 per cent of international
and investment many thousands of miles away, while a investment, while overseas production by these firms
slowdown in the US economy is felt everywhere from exceeds considerably the level of world exports, making
Birmingham to Bangkok. them key players in the global economy controlling the
Conceptualizing globalization
Initially, it might be helpful to think of globalization as a bounded national states, or internationalization as the
process characterized by: sceptics refer to it, the concept of globalization seeks to
capture the dramatic shift that is underway in the organi-
• a stretching of social, political, and economic activi- zation of human affairs: from a world of discrete but
ties across political frontiers so that events, decisions, interdependent national states to the world as a shared
and activities in one region of the world come to have social space. The concept of globalization therefore car-
significance for individuals and communities in dis- ries with it the implication of an unfolding process of
tant regions of the globe. Civil wars and conflict in the structural change in the scale of human social and eco-
world’s poorest regions, for instance, increase the flow nomic organization. Rather than social, economic, and
of asylum seekers and illegal migrants into the world’s political activities being organized primarily on a local or
affluent countries; national scale today, they are also increasingly organized
• the intensification, or the growing magnitude, of inter- on a transnational or global scale. Globalization therefore
connectedness, in almost every sphere of social existence denotes a significant shift in the scale of social organiza-
from the economic to the ecological, from the activities tion, in every sphere from the economic to the security,
of Microsoft to the spread of harmful microbes, such as transcending the world’s major regions and continents.
the SARS virus, from the intensification of world trade Central to this structural change are contemporary
to the spread of weapons of mass destruction; informatics technologies and infrastructures of commu-
• the accelerating pace of global interactions and pro- nication and transportation. These have greatly facilitated
cesses as the evolution of worldwide systems of new forms and possibilities of virtual real-time world-
transport and communication increases the rapidity wide organization and coordination, from the operations
or velocity with which ideas, news, goods, information, of multinational corporations to the worldwide mobiliza-
capital, and technology move around the world. Routine tion and demonstrations of the anti-globalization move-
telephone banking transactions in the UK are dealt ment. Although geography and distance still matter, it is
with by call centres in India in real time; nevertheless the case that globalization is synonymous
• the growing extensity, intensity, and velocity of global with a process of time–space compression—literally a
interactions is associated with a deepening enmesh- shrinking world—in which the sources of even very local
ment of the local and global in so far as local events developments, from unemployment to ethnic conflict,
may come to have global consequences and global may be traced to distant conditions or decisions. In this
events can have serious local consequences, creating respect globalization embodies a process of deterritori-
a growing collective awareness or consciousness of alization: as social, political, and economic activities are
the world as a shared social space, that is globality or increasingly ‘stretched’ across the globe, they become in a
globalism. This is expressed, among other ways, in the significant sense no longer organized solely according to a
worldwide diffusion of the very idea of globalization strictly territorial logic. Terrorist and criminal networks,
itself as it becomes incorporated into the world’s many for instance, operate both locally and globally. National
languages, from Mandarin to Gaelic. economic space, under conditions of globalization, is no
longer coterminous with national territorial space since,
As this brief description suggests, there is more to the for example, many of the UK’s largest companies have
concept of globalization than simply interconnectedness. their headquarters abroad while many domestic com-
It implies that the cumulative scale, scope, velocity, and panies now outsource their production to China and
depth of contemporary interconnectedness is dissolving East Asia among other locations. This is not to argue
the significance of the borders and boundaries which that territory and borders are now irrelevant, but rather
separate the world into its some 193 constituent states or to acknowledge that under conditions of globalization
national economic and political spaces (Rosenau 1997). their relative significance, as constraints upon social
Rather than growing interdependence between discrete action and the exercise of power, is declining. In an era of
(World Bank (2006), Global Economic Prospects 2007: Managing the Next Wave of Globalization (Washington, DC: World Bank): 118).
instantaneous real-time global communication and political globalization—many other actors, from interna-
organization, the distinction between the domestic and tional organizations to criminal networks, exercise power
the international, inside and outside the state breaks down. within, across, and against states. States no longer have a
Territorial borders no longer demarcate the boundaries monopoly of power resources whether economic, coer-
of national economic or political space. cive, or political.
A ‘shrinking world’ implies that sites of power and the To summarize: globalization is a process which
subjects of power quite literally may be continents apart. involves much more than simply growing connections or
Under these conditions the location of power cannot be interdependence between states. It can be defined as:
disclosed simply by reference to local circumstances. As
the War in Iraq (2003–) demonstrates, the key sites of glo- A historical process involving a fundamental shift or
transformation in the spatial scale of human social
bal power, whether in Washington, the United Nations
organization that links distant communities and
in New York, or London, are quite literally oceans apart expands the reach of power relations across regions and
from the local communities whose destiny they may continents.
determine. In this regard globalization involves the idea
that power, whether economic, political, and cultural Such a definition enables us to distinguish globalization
or military is increasingly organized and exercised at a from more spatially delimited processes such as inter-
distance. As such the concept of globalization denotes nationalization and regionalization. Whereas interna-
the relative denationalization of power in so far as, in tionalization refers to growing interdependence between
an increasingly interconnected global system, power is states, the very idea of internationalization presumes
organized and exercised on a transregional, transnational, that they remain discrete national units with clearly
or transcontinental basis while—see the discussion of demarcated borders. By contrast, globalization refers to a
process in which the very distinction between the domes- • Globalization is evident in the growing extensity, intensity, veloc-
tic and the external breaks down. Distance and time are ity, and deepening impact of worldwide interconnectedness.
collapsed, so that events many thousands of miles away • Globalization denotes a shift in the scale of social organization,
the emergence of the world as a shared social space, the relative
can come to have almost immediate local consequences
deterritorialization of social, economic, and political activity,
while the impacts of even more localized developments and the relative denationalization of power.
may be diffused rapidly around the globe. This is not to • Globalization can be conceptualized as a fundamental shift or
argue that distance and borders are now irrelevant. It is transformation in the spatial scale of human social organization
that links distant communities and expands the reach of power
rather to acknowledge that, under conditions of globali-
relations across regions and continents.
zation, their relative significance, as limits upon the exer- • Globalization is to be distinguished from internationalization
cise of power, is not quite so strong as it may have been and regionalization.
in the past.
Contemporary globalization
According to John Gray, the cataclysmic attacks on the 1999; Gilpin 2002). By contrast, for many of a more glo-
United States on 11 September 2001 heralded a new balist persuasion, 9/11 and the climate of insecurity it
epoch in world affairs, ‘The era of globalization is over’ has engendered are evidence of a pervasive ‘clash of glo-
(Naím 2002). States have reasserted their power and bor- balizations’. This is expressed in the form of a heighten-
ders have been sealed, however imperfectly, in response ing confrontation between the globalization of Western
to the perceived worldwide terrorist threat. Measured in modernity (i.e. ways of life) and the globalization of reac-
terms of flows within the circuits of the world-economy, tions against it. What is at issue here, at least in part, are
economic globalization undoubtedly stalled by compari- differing (theoretical and historical) interpretations of
son with the position at the turn of the century. This has globalization.
been seized upon by those of a sceptical persuasion as One of the problems of the sceptical argument is that
confirmation of their argument (Hirst and Thompson it tends to conflate globalization solely with economic
2003). Sceptics conclude that not only has globalization trends. It thus tends to overlook other evidence. Indeed,
been highly exaggerated but it is a myth which has con- contemporary globalization is not a singular process:
cealed the reality of a world which is less interdepend- it operates within all aspects of social life from politics
ent than it was in the nineteenth century and one which to production, culture to crime, and economics to edu-
remains dominated by geopolitics (Hirst and Thompson cation. It is implicated directly and indirectly in many
Sceptical accounts of globalization tend to dismiss its significance for 5 Geopolitics, state power, nationalism, and territorial boundaries
the study of world politics. They do so on the grounds that: are of growing, not less, importance in world politics.
6 Internationalization or regionalization are creatures of state policy
1 By comparison with the period 1870 to 1914, the world is much
not corporate actors or capitalist imperatives.
less globalized economically, politically, and culturally.
7 Globalization is at best a self-serving myth or ideology which
2 Rather than globalization, the contemporary world is marked by
reinforces Western and particularly US hegemony in world
intensifying geopolitics, regionalization, and internationalization.
politics.
3 The vast bulk of international economic and political activity is
concentrated within the group of OECD states. (Hirst and Thompson 1999, 2003; Hay 2000;
4 By comparison with the heyday of European global empires, the Hoogvelt 2001; Gilpin 2002)
majority of the world’s population and countries in the South are
now much less integrated into the global system.
aspects of our daily lives, from the clothes we wear, the tary globalization. To this extent contemporary globalization
food we eat, the knowledge we accumulate, through to our is highly uneven, with the result that in seeking to understand
individual and collective sense of security in an uncertain it we have to ask the prior question: the globalization of
world. Evidence of globalization is all around us: universi- what? Contrary to the sceptics, it is crucial to recognize
ties are literally global institutions from the recruitment that globalization is a complex multidimensional process:
of students to the dissemination of academic research. patterns of economic globalization and cultural globaliza-
To understand contemporary globalization therefore tion are not identical. In this respect, to draw general con-
requires a mapping of the distinctive patterns of world- clusions about globalizing trends simply from one domain
wide interconnectedness in all of the key sectors of social produces a false picture. As noted, in the aftermath of 9/11
activity, from the economic and the political through to the slowdown in economic globalization was heralded by
the military, the cultural, and the ecological. sceptics as marking the end of globalization yet this ignored
As Box 1.4 illustrates, globalization is occurring, albeit the accelerating pace of globalization in the military, tech-
with varying intensity and at a varying pace, in every domain nological, and cultural domains. Moreover, what is highly
of social activity. Of course it is more advanced in some distinctive about contemporary globalization is the conflu-
domains than others. For instance, economic globalization is ence of globalizing tendencies across all the key domains of
much more extensive and intensive than is cultural or mili- social activity. Significantly, these tendencies have proved
Globalization, to varying degrees, is evident in all the principal sec- institutions such as the International Criminal Court is indicative of
tors of social activity: an emerging global legal order.
Economic: in the economic sphere, patterns of worldwide trade, Ecological: a shared ecology involves shared environmental prob-
finance, and production are creating global markets and, in the proc- lems, from global warming to species protection, alongside the crea-
ess, a single global capitalist economy—what Castells (2000) calls tion of multilateral responses and regimes of glbal environmental
‘global informational capitalism’. Multinational corporations organ- governance.
ize production and marketing on a global basis while the operation Cultural: involves a complex mix of homogenization and increased
of global financial markets determines which countries get credit heterogeneity given the global diffusion of popular culture, global
and upon what terms. media corporations, communications networks, etc., simultane-
Military: in the military domain the global arms trade, the prolifera- ously with the reassertion of nationalism, ethnicity, and differ-
tion of weapons of mass destruction, the growth of transnational ence. But few cultures are hermetically sealed off from cultural
terrorism, the growing significance of transnational military corpora- interaction.
tions, and the discourse of global insecurity point to the existence of Social: shifting patterns of migration from South to North and
a global military order. East to West have turned migration into a major global issue as
Legal: the expansion of transnational and international law from movements come close to the record levels of the great nineteenth-
trade to human rights alongside the creation of new world legal century movements of people.
remarkably robust in the face of global instability and mili- Given such asymmetries it should not be surprising
tary conflicts. to learn that globalization does not prefigure the emer-
If patterns of contemporary globalization are une- gence of a global community or an ethic of global coop-
ven, they are also highly asymmetrical. It is a common eration. On the contrary, as 9/11 tragically demonstrated,
misconception of many sceptics that globalization the more the world becomes a shared social space the
implies universalism: that the ‘global’ in globalization greater the sense of division, difference, and conflict it
implies that all regions or countries must be similarly creates. Asymmetrical globalization is principally per-
enmeshed in worldwide processes. This is plainly not the ceived beyond the OECD core as Western globalization,
case for it very markedly involves differential patterns of provoking fears of a new imperialism and significant
enmeshment, giving it what Castells calls its ‘variable geom- counter-reactions, from the protests of the anti-globali-
etry’ (Castells 2000). The rich OECD countries are much zation movement to the actions of different cultural or
more globalized than many of the poorest sub-Saharan national communities seeking to protect their indig-
African states. Globalization is not uniformly experienced enous culture and way of life. Rather than a more coop-
across all regions, countries, or even communities since it erative world order, contemporary globalization, in many
is inevitably a highly asymmetrical process. Even within respects, has exacerbated existing tensions and conflicts,
OECD states and sub-Saharan African states many elites generated new divisions and insecurities, creating a more
are in the vanguard of globalization while others find unruly world. Globalization is a complex process embod-
themselves excluded. As a highly asymmetrical process ying contradictory tendencies towards global integration
globalization exhibits a distinctive geography of inclu- and fragmentation, cooperation and conflict, order and
sion and exclusion, resulting in clear winners and losers disorder. This has been its history. Violence has always
not just between countries but within and across them. been central to globalization, whether in the form of the
For the most affluent it may very well entail a shrinking ‘New Imperialism’ of the 1890s or the current ‘war on glo-
world—jet travel, global television and the World Wide bal terror’.
Web—but for the largest slice of humanity it tends to be By comparison with previous periods, contemporary
associated with a profound sense of disempowerment. globalization combines a remarkable confluence of
Inequality is inscribed deeply in the very processes of dense patterns of global interconnectedness, alongside
contemporary globalization such that it is more accu- their unprecedented institutionalization through new
rately described as asymmetrical globalization. global and regional infrastructures of control and com-
munication, from the World Trade Organization (WTO)
to transnational corporations. In nearly all domains
Box 1.5 The engines of globalization
contemporary patterns of globalization have not only
surpassed those of earlier epochs, but also displayed
Explanations of globalization tend to focus on three interrelated
factors, namely: technics (technological change and social organi- unparalleled qualitative differences—that is in terms of
zation); economics (markets and capitalism); and politics (power,
interests, and institutions).
Box 1.6 The three waves of globalization
Technics is central to any account of globalization since it is a
truism that without modern communications infrastructures, in
particular, a global system or worldwide economy would not be Globalization is not a novel phenomenon. Viewed as a secular his-
possible. torical process by which human civilizations have come to form a
Economics—crucial as technology is, so too is its specifically single world system, it has occurred in three distinct waves.
economic logic. Capitalism’s insatiable requirement for new mar- In the first wave, the age of discovery (1450–1850), globaliza-
kets and profits lead inevitably to the globalization of economic tion was decisively shaped by European expansion and conquest.
activity. The second wave (1850–1945) evidenced a major expansion in
Politics—shorthand here for ideas, interests, and power—con- the spread and entrenchment of European empires.
stitutes the third logic of globalization. If technology provides By comparison, contemporary globalization (1960 on) marks
the physical infrastructure of globalization, politics provides its a new epoch in human affairs. Just as the industrial revolution and
normative infrastructure. Governments, such as those of the USA the expansion of the West in the nineteenth century defined a
and the UK, have been critical actors in nurturing the process of new age in world history, so today the microchip and the satellite
globalization. are icons of a globalized world order.
how globalization is organized and managed. The exist- in its conduct of national economic policy. Thick glo-
ence of new real-time global communications infra- balization embodies a powerful systemic logic in so far
structures, in which the world literally is transformed as it structures the context in which states operate and
into a single social space, distinguishes very clearly con- thereby defines the parameters of state power. It there-
temporary globalization from that of the past. In these fore has significant consequences for how we under-
respects it is best described as a thick form of globaliza- stand world politics.
tion or globalism (Held, McGrew et al. 1999; Keohane
and Nye 2003). Key Points
As such it delineates the set of constraints and oppor-
tunities which confront governments and thereby • The contemporary phase of globalization has proved more
conditions their freedom of action or autonomy, most robust in the aftermath of 9/11 than the sceptics recognize.
• Contemporary globalization is a multidimensional, uneven, and
especially in the economic realm. For instance, the
asymmetrical process.
unprecedented scale of global financial flows at over • Contemporary globalization is best described as a thick form of
$1.88 trillion a day imposes a significant discipline on globalization or globalism.
any government, even the most economically powerful,
Consider a political map of the world: its most striking normative structure or constitution of the modern world
feature is the division of the entire earth’s surface into order. At the heart of the Westphalian settlement was
over 190 neatly defined territorial units, namely states. agreement among Europe’s rulers to recognize each oth-
To a student of politics in the Middle Ages such a rep- er’s right to rule their own territories free from outside
resentation of the world, which gave primacy to borders interference. This was codified over time in the doctrine
and boundaries, would make little sense. Historically, bor- of sovereign statehood. But it was only in the twentieth
ders are a relatively recent invention, as is the idea that century, as global empires collapsed, that sovereign state-
states are sovereign, self-governing, territorially delim- hood and with it national self-determination finally
ited political communities or polities. Although today acquired the status of universal organizing principles
a convenient fiction, this presumption remains central of world order. Contrary to Pope Innocent’s desires, the
to orthodox state-centric conceptions of world politics Westphalian Constitution by then had come to colonize
as the pursuit of power and interests between sovereign the entire planet.
states. Globalization, however, calls this state-centric con- Constitutions are important because they establish the
ception of world politics into question. Taking globaliza- location of legitimate political authority within a polity
tion seriously therefore requires a conceptual shift in the
way we think about world politics.
Box 1.7 The Westphalian Constitution
of world politics
The Westphalian Constitution of world order
1 Territoriality: humankind is organized principally into exclu-
sive territorial (political) communities with fixed borders.
The Peace Treaties of Westphalia and Osnabruck (1648) 2 Sovereignty: within its borders the state or government has
established the legal basis of modern statehood and by an entitlement to supreme, unqualified, and exclusive political
implication the fundamental rules or constitution of and legal authority.
3 Autonomy: the principle of self-determination or self-govern-
modern world politics. Although Pope Innocent referred
ance constructs countries as autonomous containers of politi-
to the Westphalian settlement at the time as ‘null, repro- cal, social, and economic activity in that fixed borders separate
bate and devoid of meaning for all time’, in the course the domestic sphere from the world outside.
of the subsequent four centuries it has formed the
them a privileged status in understanding and explain- allocated and policies conducted through international
ing contemporary world affairs. For under conditions of or transnational political processes’ (Ougaard 2004: 5).
political globalization states are increasingly embedded In other words, to how the global order is, or fails to be,
in thickening and overlapping worldwide webs of: multi- governed.
lateral institutions and multilateral politics such as NATO Since the UN’s creation in 1945 a vast nexus of glo-
and the World Bank; transnational associations and net- bal and regional institutions has evolved surrounded
works, from the International Chamber of Commerce to by a proliferation of non-governmental agencies and
the World Muslim Congress; global policy networks of networks seeking to influence the governance of global
officials, corporate and non-governmental actors, deal- affairs. While world government remains a fanciful idea,
ing with global issues, such as the Global AIDS Fund and there does exist an evolving global governance complex—
the Roll Back Malaria Initiative; and those formal and embracing states, international institutions, transnational
informal (transgovernmental) networks of government networks and agencies (both public and private)—which
officials dealing with shared global problems, including functions, with variable effect, to promote, regulate, or
the Basle Committee of central bankers and the Financial intervene in, the common affairs of humanity (Fig. 1.2).
Action Task Force on money-laundering (Fig. 1.1). Over the last five decades, its scope and impact have
Global politics directs our attention to the emer- expanded dramatically with the result that its activities
gence of a fragile global polity within which ‘interests are have become significantly politicized, as global protests
articulated and aggregated, decisions are made, values against the WTO attest.
International organization
Transnational organization
Government Society
UN agencies
e.g. IMF, WB,
WHO, UNDP
Regional bodies
Global public policy e.g. Eu, AU, ARF,
networks MERCOSUR
e.g. Global Aids Fund,
ICECL, FATF
National
governments
Private govermance
e.g. IASB, ICC,
GCA
KEY:
AI Amnesty International ICECL International Convention on tne
ARE Asean Regional Forum Elimination of Child Labour
AU African Union IMF International Monetary Fund
EU Europenan Union MERCOSUR Southem American Common Market
FATF Finacial Action Task Force MSF Médecin sans Frontierès
(on money-laundering) NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
FOE Friends of the Earth PMC Private military companies, e.g. Sandline
G8 Group of 8 (US, Italy, UK, France, RAN Rainforest Action Network
Germany, Russia, Cannada, Japan & EU) UNDP UN Development Programme
G77 Group of 77 developing countries WB World Bank
GCA Global credit agencies, e.g. Moodies, WHO World Health Organization
Standard and poor WIPO World Intellectual Property Ringhts
IASB International Accounting Standards Board Organization
ICC International Chamber of Commerce WTO World Trade Organization
This evolving global governance complex encom- the product of a complex politics involving public and
passes the multitude of formal and informal structures private actors from trade unions, industrial associations,
of political coordination among governments, inter- humanitarian groups, governments, legal experts, not
governmental and transnational agencies—public and forgetting officials and experts within the International
private—designed to realize common purposes or col- Labour Organization (ILO).
lectively agreed goals through the making or implement- Within this global governance complex private or
ing of global or transnational rules, and the regulation of non-governmental agencies have become increas-
transborder problems. A good illustration of this is the ingly influential in the formulation and implemen-
creation of international labour codes to protect vul- tation of global public policy. The International
nerable workers. The International Convention on the Accounting Standards Board establishes global account-
Elimination of Child Labour (ICECL), for instance, was ing rules, while the major credit-rating agencies, such
as Moodys and Standard and Poor, determine the organizing, and exercising political power across national
credit status of governments and corporations around boundaries. This has been facilitated by the speed and
the globe. This is a form of private global govern- ease of modern global communications and a growing
ance in which private organizations regulate, often awareness of common interests between groups in different
in the shadow of global public authorities, aspects of countries and regions of the world. At the 2006 Ministerial
global economic and social affairs. In those realms in Meeting of the WTO in Hong Kong, the representatives
which it has become highly significant, mainly the eco- of environmental, corporate, and other interested parties
nomic and the technological, this private global govern- outnumbered the formal representatives of government.
ance involves a relocation of authority from states and Of course, not all the members of transnational civil
multilateral bodies to non-governmental organizations society are either civil or representative; some seek to
and private agencies. further dubious, reactionary, or even criminal causes
Coextensive with the global governance complex while many lack effective accountability. Furthermore,
is an embryonic transnational civil society. In recent there are considerable inequalities between the agencies of
decades a plethora of NGOs, transnational organizations transnational civil society in terms of resources, influence
(from the International Chamber of Commerce, and access to key centres of global decision-making.
international trade unions, and the Rainforest Network Multinational corporations, like Rupert Murdoch’s News
to the Catholic Church), advocacy networks (from the International, have much greater access to centres of
women’s movement to Nazis on the net), and citizens’ power, and capacity to shape the global agenda, than does
groups have come to play a significant role in mobilizing, the Rainforest Action Network.
If global politics involves a diversity of actors and policy and meeting their citizens’ demands, their capacity
institutions it is also marked by a diversity of political for self-governance—that is, state autonomy—is com-
concerns. The agenda of global politics is anchored to promised. Today, a difficult trade-off is posed between
not just traditional geopolitical concerns but also to a effective governance and self-governance. In this respect,
proliferation of economic, social, cultural, and ecological the Westphalian image of the monolithic, unitary state is
questions. Pollution, drugs, human rights, and terrorism being displaced by the image of the disaggregated state
are among an increasing number of transnational policy in which its constituent agencies increasingly interact
issues which, because of globalization, transcend territorial with their counterparts abroad, international agencies,
borders and existing political jurisdictions, and thereby and NGOs in the management of common and global
require international cooperation for their effective affairs (Slaughter 2004) (Fig. 1.3).
resolution. Politics today is marked by a proliferation of Global politics is a term which acknowledges that the
new types of ‘boundary problem’. In the past, of course, scale of political life has fundamentally altered: politics
nation-states principally resolved their differences over understood as that set of activities concerned primarily
boundary matters by pursuing reasons of state backed with the achievement of order and justice does not rec-
by diplomatic initiatives and, ultimately, by coercive ognize territorial boundaries. It questions the utility of
means. But this geopolitical logic appears singularly the distinction between the domestic and the foreign,
inadequate and inappropriate to resolve the many complex inside and outside the territorial state, the national and
issues, from economic regulation to resource depletion the international since decisions and actions taken in one
and environmental degradation to chemical weapons region impact upon the welfare of communities in distant
proliferation, which engender—at seemingly ever greater parts of the globe, with the result that domestic politics
speeds—an intermeshing of ‘national fortunes’. is internationalized and world politics becomes domes-
This is not to argue that the sovereign state is in ticated. It acknowledges that power in the global system
decline. The sovereign power and authority of national is not the sole preserve of states but is distributed (une-
government—the entitlement of states to rule within venly) among a diverse array of public and private actors
their own territorial space—is being transformed but and networks (from international agencies, through cor-
by no means eroded. Locked into systems of global and porations to NGOs) with important consequences for
regional governance, states now assert their sovereignty who gets what, how, when, and where. It recognizes that
less in the form of a legal claim to supreme power than as political authority has been diffused not only upwards
a bargaining tool, in the context of transnational systems to supra-state bodies, such as the European Union, but
of rule-making, with other agencies and social forces. also downwards to sub-state bodies, such as regional
Sovereignty is bartered, shared, and divided among the assemblies, and beyond the state to private agencies,
agencies of public power at different levels from the local such as the International Accounting Standards Board.
to the global. The Westphalian conception of sovereignty It accepts that sovereignty remains a principal juridical
as an indivisible, territorially exclusive form of public attribute of states but concludes that it is increasingly
power is being displaced by a new sovereignty regime, in divided and shared between local, national, regional,
which sovereignty is understood as the shared exercise of and global authorities. Finally, it affirms that, in an age
public power and authority. In this respect we are witness- of globalization, national polities no longer function as
ing the emergence of a post-Westphalian world order. closed systems. On the contrary, it asserts that all poli-
Furthermore, far from globalization leading to ‘the tics—understood as the pursuit of order and justice—are
end of the state’, it elicits a more activist state. This is played out in a global context.
because, in a world of global enmeshment, simply to However, as with globalization, inequality and exclu-
achieve domestic objectives national governments are sion are endemic features of contemporary global politics.
forced to engage in extensive multilateral collaboration There are many reasons for this but three factors in par-
and cooperation. But in becoming more embedded in ticular are crucial: first, enormous inequalities of power
frameworks of global and regional governance, states con- between states; second, global governance is shaped by an
front a real dilemma: in return for more effective public unwritten constitution that tends to privilege the interests
State A State B
Finance Finance
Trade Trade
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Health Health
Environment Environment
Justice Justice
Education Education
Security Security
and agenda of global capitalism; third, the technocratic valued. Whether a more democratic global politics is
nature of much global decision-making, from health to imaginable and what it might look like is the concern of
security, tends to exclude many with a legitimate stake in normative theorists and is the subject of the concluding
the outcomes. section of this chapter.
These three factors produce cumulative inequalities
of power and exclusion—reflecting the inequalities Key Points
of power between North and South—with the result
• Globalization is transforming but not burying the Westphalian
that contemporary global politics is more accurately
ideal of sovereign statehood. It is producing the disaggregated
described as distorted global politics: ‘distorted’ in the state.
sense that inevitably those states and groups with greater • Globalization requires a conceptual shift in our thinking about
power resources and access to key sites of global decision- world politics from a primarily geopolitical perspective to the
perspective of geocentric or global politics—the politics of
making tend to have the greatest control or influence over worldwide social relations.
the agenda and outcomes of global politics. In short, • Global politics is more accurately described as distorted
global politics has few democratic qualities. This sits in global politics because it is afflicted by significant power
tension with a world in which democracy is generally asymmetries.
Globalization, it can be argued, is associated with a double preferences of their citizens, then the very essence
democratic deficit. On the one hand, it has compounded of democracy, namely self-governance, is decidedly
the tension between democracy as a territoriality rooted compromised. On the other hand, it is associated with the
system of rule and the operation of global markets emergence of a distorted global politics in which power
and transnational networks of corporate power. For if asymmetries and global institutions more often than not
democratic governments are losing the capacity to manage enhance the interests of global elites at the expense of the
transnational forces in accordance with the expressed wider world community. Many of the agencies of global
Guiding ethical principles/core Global social justice, democracy, universal human rights, human security, rule of law,
values transnational solidarity
Short-term measure Governance
• Reform of global governance: representative Security Council; establishment of
Human Security Council (to coordinate global development policies); Global Civil
Society Forum; strengthened systems of global accountability; enhancement of
national and regional governance infrastructures and capacities; enhanced parlia-
mentary scrutiny
Economy
• Regulating global markets: selective capital controls; regulation of offshore financial
centres; voluntary codes of conduct for multinational corporations (MNCs)
• Promoting development: abolition of debt for highly indebted poor countries
(HIPCs); meeting UN aid targets of 0.7% GNP; fair trade rules; removal of EU and
US subsidies of agriculture and textiles
Security
• Strengthening global humanitarian protection capacities; implementation of exist-
ing global poverty reduction and human development commitments and policies;
strengthening of arms control and arms trade regulation
Long-term transformations Governance
• Double democratization (national to supra-state governance); enhanced global
public goods provision; global citizenship
Economy
• Taming global markets; World Financial Authority; mandatory codes of conduct for
MNCs; global tax mechanism; global competition authority
Security
• Global social charter; permanent peacekeeping and humanitarian emergency forces;
social exclusion and equity impact reviews of all global development measures
Institutional/political Activist states, global progressive coalition (involving key Western and developing states
conditions and civil society forces), strong multilateral Institutions, open regionalism, global civil
society, redistributive regimes, regulation of global markets, transnational public sphere
civil society too are highly unrepresentative of the world’s Within the normative theory of world politics one
peoples. Distorted global politics, in other words, has weak particular approach speaks directly to the failings of
democratic credentials. Arguably, redressing this double distorted global politics, namely, cosmopolitanism (see
democratic deficit, alongside global poverty reduction, is Ch.11) (Held 2002; Moellendorf 2002). Cosmopolitanism
the greatest ethical and political challenge of the twenty- presents a radical critique of distorted global politics for
first century. the manner in which it perpetuates global inequalities
and therefore global injustices. Realizing a more humane global governance complex. Regulating globalization in
and just world order requires a reformed and more the public and global interest has become a paramount
democratic system of global governance, which can at a political issue across the world. Witness, for instance, the
minimum regulate global markets and prevent transna- global campaign in 2005 to Make Poverty History. There
tional harm to the most vulnerable. This might be termed is now increased political pressure on G8 governments
the project of cosmopolitan democracy (Box 1.9). especially to bring good governance to global govern-
Cosmopolitan democracy can be conceived as a basis ance by making it more transparent, accountable, and
for combining the democratization of global govern- legitimate. A broader global consensus appears to be
ance with the pursuit of global social justice (see Ch.31). emerging on the need for such reform, drawing political
It seeks to nurture and institutionalize some of the core support from across the North–South divide and among
values of social democracy—the rule of law, political diverse constituencies of transnational civil society. In
equality, democratic governance, social justice, social short, distorted global politics gives expression to diverse
solidarity, and economic efficiency—within global power democratic impulses and constituencies. However, it
systems. Cosmopolitan democracy seeks to reinvigor- would be foolish to assume that such impulses and con-
ate democracy within states by extending democracy to stituencies will triumph in the near future since arrayed
relations between and across states. Only through such a against them are powerful global forces which resist
double democratization will the double democratic defi- the creation of a more cosmopolitan or humane global
cit created by globalization be addressed. In effect, those politics.
global sites and transnational networks of power, which Arguably, distorted global politics embodies a historic
at present escape effective national democratic control, struggle between the logic of power politics (statism) and the
will be brought to account, so establishing the conditions logic of cosmopolitanism, between power and paradise. Its
befitting the realization of a more humane and demo- future trajectory, however, remains wholly speculative. That
cratic global politics. In the context of a deeply divided it is so is a source of both intellectual despair and huge relief:
world, in which violence is endemic and might seeks to despair since it reaffirms the limits of our current theories of
impose right, the prospects for its realization might cur- world politics in so far as they offer scant guide to the future,
rently appear somewhat remote. Yet its advocates argue relief because it confirms that the future remains to be made,
that it is rooted in the actually existing conditions of glo- even if, to paraphrase Marx, it is not within the conditions of
bal politics. our own choosing. Therefore globalization undoubtedly will
Cosmopolitanism builds upon the argument that glo- remain a powerful force for global change, hopefully for the
balization is bringing about a post-Westphalian order. As better but quite possibly for the worse.
a result, the present world order combines, in an unsta-
ble mix, elements of both paradise and power: that is, Key Points
of democratic principles and realpolitik (see Ch.5 and
Ch.7). Thus the principles of self-determination, the rule • Globalization creates a double democratic deficit in that it
of law, popular sovereignty, democratic legitimacy, the places limits on democracy within states and new mechanisms
legal equality of states, and even redistribution (through of global governance which lack democratic credentials.
• Global politics has engendered its own global political theory
aid) are embedded in global politics. So too are the ideas
which draws upon cosmopolitan thinking.
that might is right and that the national interest has pri- • Cosmopolitanism offers an account of the desirability and feasi-
macy over all else. Globalization thereby has provoked bility of the democratization of global politics.
major political reactions which in their more progres- • Distorted global politics can be interpreted as expressing a con-
test between the forces of statism and cosmopolitanism in the
sive manifestations have engendered a wider political
conduct and management of world affairs.
debate about the democratic credentials of the existing
Conclusion
This chapter has sought to elucidate the concept of tics (or inter-state politics) to global politics—the poli-
globalization and identify its implications for the study tics of state and non-state actors within a shared global
of world politics. It has argued that globalization recon- social space. Global politics is imbued with deep inequal-
structs the world as a shared social space. But it does so in ities of power such that in its current configuration it is
a far from uniform manner: contemporary globalization more accurately described as distorted global politics:
is highly uneven—it varies in its intensity and extensity a politics of domination, contestation and competition
between different spheres of activity, and is highly asym- between powerful states and transnational social forces.
metrical—and it engenders a highly unequal geography Cosmopolitan theory, it was noted, suggests that a more
of global inclusion and exclusion. In doing so it is as much democratic form of global politics is both desirable and
a source of conflict and violence as of cooperation and feasible. To this extent the trajectory of global politics will
harmony in world affairs. be shaped significantly by the struggle between the forces
In focusing upon the consequences of globalization of statism and cosmopolitanism, or might is right versus
for the study of international relations, this chapter has right is might. The outcome of this contest will determine
argued that it engenders a fundamental shift in the con- whether twenty-first-century global politics will be a pol-
stitution of world politics. A post-Westphalian world itics of hope or of fear; in other words, whether a more
order is in the making as sovereign statehood is trans- humane and democratic global politics can be fashioned
formed by the dynamics of globalization. A conceptual out of today’s distorted global politics.
shift in our thinking is therefore required: from geopoli-
Questions
Castells, M. (2000), (Oxford: Blackwells). This is a now contemporary classic account of the
political economy of globalization which is comprehensive in its analysis of the new global
informational capitalism.
Duffield, M. (2001), Global Governance and the New Wars (London: Zed). A very readable account
of how globalization is leading to the fusion of the development and security agendas within the
global governance complex.
Gilpin, R. (2001), Global Political Economy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press). A more
sceptical view of economic globalization which, although taking it seriously, conceives it as an
expression of Americanization or American hegemony.
Held, D., and McGrew, A. (2007), Globalization/Anti-Globalization: Beyond the Great Divide, 2nd
edn (Cambridge: Polity Press). A short introduction to all aspects of the current globalization
debate and its implications for the study for world politics.
Hirst, P., and Thompson, G. (1999), Globalization in Question, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Polity Press).
An excellent and sober critique of the hyperglobalist argument, which is thoroughly sceptical
about the globalization thesis, viewing it as a return to the belle époque and heavily shaped by
states.
Holton, R. (2005), Making Globalization (London: Palgrave). A comprehensive overview of
globalization and its implications for the study of the social sciences written from a sociological
perspective.
Kennedy, P., et al. (2002), Global Trends and Global Governance (London: Pluto Press). A good
introduction to how globalization is reshaping world politics and the nature of global governance.
Robertson, R. (2003), The Three Waves of Globalization: A History of Developing Global
Consciousness (London: Zed). A very good account of globalization as a long-term historical
process driven by a combination of economic and political factors.
Scholte, J. A. (2005), Globalization—A critical Introduction, 2nd edn (Basingstoke: Macmillan).
An excellent introduction to the globalization debate from its causes to its consequences for the
global political economy from within a critical political economy perspective.
Visit the Online Resource Centre that accompanies this book to access more learning
resources on this chapter topic at www.oxfordtextbooks.co.uk/uk/orc/baylis_smith4e/