This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Association of American Geographers, Vol. 95, No. 2 (Jun., 2005), pp. 437-461 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of the Association of American Geographers Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3694127 . Accessed: 11/05/2011 08:38
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact email@example.com.
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and Association of American Geographers are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annals of the Association of American Geographers.
and Territoriality State Sovereignty Regimes:
Los Department ofGeography, ofCalifornia,Angeles University
World in AuthorityContemporary Politics
a that of in toargue states that I propose concept effective regimes exhibit sovereignty participatesovereignty from distinctive combinations ofcentral authority political state Two basic and conclusions, drawing territoriality. recent nor research political in territorial is isneither and are fields, that inherently geography other sovereignty itexclusively has invested on basis. so because much energy been organized a state-by-state Thismatters political in organizing about in and in in to writing sovTypically, politics general democracy particularrelation states. little as providing a norm legitimizes that central authority. state ereignty regards Unfortunately, or sovereignty no attentiongiven towhy should and is as this ofpolitical entail territorial a definition authority towhy always states thereby soleproprietors. dominant are font as singular its the The to continues privilege state the approach ofauthority when state's or even a and as sovereignty be decried hypocrisy seenas divisible issue-specific may rather "real" absolute.putforward than one or I to a model sovereignty of alternativethedominant byidenfour state that ofcentral authority from combinations tifying "sovereignty (legitimate regimes" result distinctive ofinfrastructural on and of despotic power) theone hand, degree political (the territoriality administration or on I a some of of not power) theother. "regime"mean system rule, merely sort international By protocol of between of I examine general the agreement putatively states. then equal trajectorythecombinationsovof from nineteenth The to ereignty regimes theearly geographycurrencies century thepresent. contemporary about serves illustrate general the (specifically argument sovereignty exchange-rate arrangements) toempirically inpolitical a brief conclusion that dominant model regimes. Finally, sovereignty suggests the Westphalian ofstate of and the relations deficientithaslong as been understandingrealities world for geography international theory, is and of of not for the politics,evenmore inadequate today, only itsignoring hierarchystates sources authority other than of but of on states, alsobecause itsmistaken (parexpression authority emphasis thegeographical under and territorial. Words: as invariably inevitably states, ticularly theambiguous of"sovereignty") Key sign effective sovereignty, territoriality, sovereignty dollarization. regimes,
hesovereignty ofstates long has been as has enjoyed systematic less viewed 1996;Koanalysis (Murphy both a sourceof and a response interin all claims about to and brin1997;Biersteker 2002). Implicit intra-state form takenby conflict. as theorists, state sovereignty the quintessential Amongpolitical mostattention been givento the relationship has claimsabout distinare bepoliticalauthority associated tweensovereignty political from and in a boundedterritory an external authority: particular, guishing strictly state that hasarisen enforce to the internal and order world thusfixing territorial ofsovereignty sovereignty scope and the for external Rethreat. legitimately to protect against (Agnew 1994). Territoriality, use of territory seen as a the of claimaboutde jureorlegal ends,is widely social,and economic cently, grounding this political, in the for to of successful sovereignty relation assumptions international largely strategy establishing exclusive and equality states been subject statesovereignty. has to anarchy by among jurisdiction implied some examination is so But effective (e.g., Badie 1999; Krasner1999, sovereignty not necessarily neatly and In of territorialized.a landmark 2001; Lake 2003). Indeed,acrossa number fieldspaperon sovereignty from between de to is (1996) distinguishes geography law and sociology-there a shared territoriality, Murphy sense that the conventional to of understanding sover- jure and de factosovereignty makethispoint.This thatthereacas and rule however, distinction, eignty unlimited indivisible bya stateovera necessarily implies and thepeoplein itis in needofserious from de is critical tually a purede juresovereignty which facto territory and Falk 1992; Walker1993; is scrutiny My (e.g.,Camilleri sovereigntya lapseor anomaly. claimis thatde for is. isall and facto 1994; Anderson 1996; Biersteker Weber Murphy sovereignty there The U.S. government, to a since2001,hasrefused recognize denialof 1996; Luke 1996; Hashmi 1997; Ong 1999; Mason example, from combatants Afghanistan to 2001; Sidaway 2003; Stacy2003). But the conceptual rights so-called enemy connection between and stateterritoriality heldat theU.S. basein Guantanamo Cuba,on the Bay, sovereignty
Annals the of Geographers 95(2), 2005, pp. 437-461 C 2005 byAssociation American of Association American of Geographers, Initial October2004 March2004; revised submission, submission, 2004; final acceptance, September Published Blackwell Oxford 350 Main Street, MA 02148, and 9600 Garsington OX4 2DQ, U.K. Road, Malden, by Publishing,
438 Agnew and refugees creasingly porousto flowsof migrants and innovation state regulation. For example.). de of The questioning territorial jure sovereignty mattersnot simplybecause of the challenge to state political primacyfrom globalizationbut because the is to equationofstatewithsovereignty intrinsic the ways in in whichpoliticsin generaland democracy particular have been consideredin moderntimes. Bay one ofa large chainofdetention an centers. is not In otherwords.manypeosovereignty. Various sovereignty and dangers motivated interventions repeated military and in by American Sovietgovernments stateswithin theirputative of respective spheres influence during the Cold War (e. privateers the form private licensed powerful contractors states)and piby military withlocalpopulations) rateson thehighseas (popular the that comebacks challenge thesis have madeserious the legitimate of use thatstatesinvariably monopolize within statesincreasviolence.S.The riseof nationalism (Dallmyrand Rosales 2001). Australia inof and has in tervened in militarily the faceof political instability various Pacific island states.S. Hall and Biersteker 2002.but also in its issue-specific authority of consequences for the territorialization sovereignty (e. in ple hold citizenship multiplestates. bordersare in- . ate in recent years. as andother under mantle the of governments (sometimes the United Nations) have also intervened militarily the across globe. organizations of in the provision public goods across state gage innothe boundaries. "handedback" sovereignty an Iraqi-staffed to governmenton 28 June2004 thateffective resovereignty mainedup forgrabs. Democracy and popular sovereignty grew togetherafterthe American and French revoluthe further reinforced link tions. Morespecifically. dependent upon the democracyhas been historically nation-state-the state as underwritten a singular by national identity." thewakeofso-called ian crises. American which Central the gulag. is infor stateorigin a large to difficult establish creasingly tradeas transnational in of number commodities world their activities acrossmultiple coordinate corporations of a number public in locations different countries. Indeed. impact globalization states the of on isfelt only thechallenge posestotheir in not it overall or from otherstates.S.S. of supposed "weapons massdestruction" held allegedly bytheIraqigovernment was the prima facereasonforthe U.S.-ledinvasion of Iraq in 2003. long seen as the badges of state are increasingly denationalized.g. Most recently. intervene.currencies. the Syrian exercises tremendous government leverage overthegovernment Lebanon. Agnew 1999.Bosniaand Kosovo. without knowledge it national honor no networks longer boundaries. al Qaeda terrorist the while state boundaries works across exploiting lackof exercised someofitshoststates territorial by sovereignty of (in (such as Pakistan). proper. subject scarce commentarythetime a or since. Stephens to allowtreating in that would prisoners ways potentially be subjectto judicialreview the U.under Military Orderof 13 November 2001. Singer2004).large and enand private mediate..Weber1995).S. I and othershave recited claim that the base is not within the jurisdiction of American courts thusnotsubject judicial and to review the of holding concerning constitutionality peopleinwithout But Guantinamo is just definitely charge. negotiation of in of and redefinition political authority geographically of the the ways suggests need to change terms complex is of article to The purpose this about debate sovereignty. Langewiesche2004. wisdom of do so by:(a) critical analysis theconventional to attention the about sovereignty. Zacher 1992. of in In humanitar"terrorist activity. in Somalia.S. evenwhenthestates intervenfacing tionhavedefended themselves such"violations" against of territorial threats (Mills2000)." howcurrencies havecometo operhowtheseregimes theworld today.and judicialregulation courts with reference supranational to involves (as ingly of Union[EU]) orto thedecisions foreign theEuropean ones (as in theU. examining "sovof incidence different and historical geographical in of global (capacities states different ereignty regimes" and de to situations exercise facto internally sovereignty of theexample the and (c) showing through externally).the worldwide explosionin negativeenvironmentalexternalities does not respect international boundaries. Hardt and Negri2000. sovereignty necessarily effective territorial andfixed on by predicated and defined thestrict the states. paying particular of sourcesof authority beyondstatesand expansion as sovereignty's of theattenuation territoriality primary the mode of geographical (b) organization.For one thing. For its through heavy troop presence. President gavehimself right detain nonBush the to any U. political perhaps mostimportant the vationofrecent network.g. is not just the so-called It Great Powers thathave suchan extended reach. around or of operate "geographymoney. But it was clear that when the U. times. the threat theterritorial from to U.. Cohen 1998. in Reand to at markably. example. geographical however. boundariesindividual In my view.S. (CIA) and Intelligence Agency American worldwide scarcely nod with a military operate to local claimsof territorial (Priestand sovereignty localsovereignty is then mask a 2004).the U. Slaughter and Burke-White 2000. citizen in for anywhere theworld as longas he chose if therewere suspicion involvement anti-U.
may as territorial derstood theabsolute of organizationpolitical Mostaccounts sovereignty of acceptitseither/ authority."In early modernEuropeanabsolutism. command which nonecan exercise "Juridthe ical" or legalsovereignty. the-people-in-government.Such statesin between a recognition equality implies formal overothers. "domestic" sovereignty requiresa source of authority the nation. The has been symbolically of physicality the sovereign from to transferred the monarch the state territory 1957. or sovereignty seen as totallyunder threator . 166-67). 439 at Sovereignty Bay? In conventional is politicaldiscourse. body. a does or does not have soveror quality: stateeither as they (see eignty Lake 2003). provides necesof for condition theoperation domestic sary geographical between the hierarchy a rigid distinction sovereignty: from its exercised the statewithin territory the anby thatprevails it.98. sovereignty aboutcentral stateauthority. the incorporealrealm of the state is in oftendescribed Western as thought a "body. Runciidly (Niisstr6m man 2003). example. dominant understandings of Currently state sovereignty based on older ones in whichsovare was associated with the physicalperson of a ereignty monarch. Theydiffer to whether see thisas a foundational in. rhetorically advocating movebeyond state world the to Buttheonly citizenship.the sametime. Even bondedtogether. of fection some of its parts"(Shemek2002. economic and politstates show evidence of increasing as this ical interdependence. Butis organization there necessary a of conceptual dependence each on the other? Statements as "theideals citizenship such of clash with sovereign the in nation-state which werefirst they thattheyno 1998. with "a world in themodern sovereign achieving power whichhas triangle.thatis. is construed eithera choice interests that theyhave made in pursuitof self-evident ratherthan an exogenouschallengeto them (Helleiner is 1994).thatthere absolute is popular sovereignty vestedin a national/territorial political community rigmarked from others off all 2003. 182) imply developed"(Linklater do. Unfortunately. Linklater a 2004) holdsto thisviewpoint. this to as In account. and thepopulation as itsessential as itsprimary target as of mechanism apparatuses security" theexclusive the Foucault Of (1980) is also centerpiece.in World Politics and Sovereignty Regimes: Territoriality StateAuthority Contemporary in theways which deliberative the nature democracy of as it developed seemsto require territorial adjacency citizens in which symbolic and its content rests among on common territorial histories struggle social of and (Thaa 2001. to statesand political modern namejust a few. course. therefore. Agnew 2002. subject natural are of is a kingand whoselimbsand organs subjects or attack the incan die onlybyviolent various rank. dualist vision has rarelyprevailed in critical analysis of the for of Rather. the of is therefore. etc. therefore. political between the theorist who pointed to the conflict the sovereign powerofrulesbacked bysanctionsand the of actual dailyexperience powerexercised a multitude by element of disof nonstate sources as a fundamental this course and social practice. Democracy's have to respond thischallenge democracy to to if is survive in and prosper a globalizing world(Anderson 2002). are seen as practically authority with Foucault (1991. is a relationship This in which agent a statecan makecommands are an of that with those overwhom state the voluntarily complied by In claimsauthority. 5). can of without waythatthey conceive world citizenship the condition demof opening to question founding up ocratic of theory-the presumption a territorialized politicalcommunity-is "scaling from individual by up" states theworld a whole. the typical such internal or story. Held (e. sovereignty seen as state-based and territorial. Absolute continues to sovereignty thereby underwrite as it is typically of by democracy thought even as the contemporary democrats. Anygivenstatemust recognized soveras eignby otherstatesin orderto qualify such.93).when practices statesovereignty. (originating for principle withthe Peace of the seventeenth century example. or earlier) as an emergent or Westphalia in in are that also vary accepting there actors inThey that weaker ternational states) (suchas militarily politics Hobbes(1651) and Locke From are notfully sovereign. also see Kantorowicz (Bartelson Thismetaphor resists idea that the and Norberg 1998). remain This by is becauseestablished democratic and theory practice haverequired necessary a fiction makethem to possible at all. Thus. sovereignty-discipline-government.. socialpractice.muchoftheso-called longer cosmopolitan literature democracy on 1998. Explicitly. however. Indeed. At can sovereignty be deterritorialized.) thatoperateseffectively within territory the state. dihas and in the same story.g. (kingship.Melzer 1995. normative of and basedon categories consent legitimacy territorialization unaffected globalization. (1690) to Schmitt(1985) and Agamben(1998). "bodypoliticis always the an adultmale bodythathas no history birth of and is not This whosehead to deterioration. beyond archy statesovereignty be unFromthisviewpoint. sovereignty an external as be mension. cosmopolitan worldcalls forattention divisible to and sovereignty deterritorialized advocates will legitimacy. a theorist a lessstate-centered as stateauthority seems see central to viewoftheworld.
(Campbell is by sovereignty a social factproduced the practices from the "statethan emerging of states. although asand of (bothdomestic jusumption equal sovereignty to at ridical) mayapply.Theysimply (Inayatullah Blaney reto resources challenge nothave thepower seriously states strictions placed upon themby morepowerful (and other actors such as internationalinstitutions. The importance of the Peace of Westphaliain 1648. are pregiven phenomena story suggests. imitate.This is all good and well.as I have change above. In the nationalistimagination. is never preexisting for a other words. only the and of through interaction recognition households.g. emerges ofstruggles conit a basis thosestruggles. banks. statehood out for particularly... as of This depiction the stateis especially beconvincing a moral claimequating autonomy an indicause the of vidualperson withthatof the stateis masked the by natural claimthatis madeon behalf thestateas an of In individual. states. 1999). theEuropean their settler China.186]) usedas thebasisfor positing comesaboutas a the origins the state.So. aspect is the to their sovereignty-both interpretation ideathat as constructed states domestic external-issocially and withone another. forexample.the historical construction of as statehood a particular of political is type enterprise makeover. a naturalized As inabstract the a that dividual.by usingits unique qualitiesto compete within global a division labor(Inayatullah Rupert of and 1994). sovereign The state givena transcendental as is exalted thesingular solution boththeproblem to of humanaggression.Yet. dynasties.the state then becomes of something a superperson (e. Muchofthisinequality theresult imperialexercised theU.but it failsto addresstwo further emphasized viewsof to that assumptions are critical the dominant sovereignty.So-called have concerned with this constructivists beenespecially Wendt ofcontemporary 1999). More and tribes. leastto a degree. It is not the outcomeof "isolatedstates" and then engagingwith achievingstatehoodseparately one anotheras abstractindividuals. such. Thus. the powerin the face of devastating religious of also legitimation statesovereignty dependedon the increased loyalty and supportof populationsthrough the of cross-mapping nationwithstate (Gottmann1973). derand danger 1992). social movements. state A and as emerges is recognized suchwithin setofrelationships define rules a that the for whatis andwhat nota "state. In trol. In fact. . Butwhatiftheabsolute indivisible in aboutstatesovauthority political implicit thisstory and itspresumed territorial is problematic basis ereignty with? to begin The conventional isbasedon giving state the an story and character to ontological a moral equivalent thatof in theindividual liberalism Jacobson person classical (N. Schmitt1985).S.Nor can theyexpect ready recognitionof their internalpolitical autheirclaim to when theyhave eitherinherited thority rule fromcolonial powersor depend fortheircontinuance in power on externalsupport (Keene 2002). ismin thepastand thehegemony by the and its allies in the present. them.and a states. first have has But attention. in actorsin world of reality hierarchy powerbetween in is oneofmajor world The inequalities politics. stateis notontologically to a setof prior interstate relations." is Statehood results from mutual states(Biersteker Weber and recognition among 1996)." is rooted a grammar fixed as It in of and boundaries identities. The stateis thus treated a "given. the third been received increasing that is The first the assumption sovneglected.ina "state nature. they bothsubjectivities formed ofsocialinteraction out and mutual Persons states and form such as recognition. sovereigntyas yet"unsovereignty do and realized" 1995). to the problem organizing and of economiclife. rather war of all againstall-that Thomas of-nature"-the Hobbes(1651 [1968.lay in the mutual recognition among elites of the new European territorial states as a set of neutral centers of public wars.a dangerhere lies in seeingstatesovereignty a largelyrealized phenomenon in the West and absent elsewherewhen it is betterthoughtof as "unrealized" that it is usuallyalleged in everywhere the de jure form to take. and conflict interact with. is For deficit. largely of or is exogenously. Skinner 1998. Agnew1999. Of as course.and multinational businesses).440 Agnew strands conof of From brief the overview dominant three aspects about sovereignty thinking temporary two The standin need ofparticular scrutiny. thisway. "newtechnologies" power "at bay"from of (LukeandO Tuathail and 1998). offspring Japan.Key thinking (e.g.sovereignty of and in of of result the"purposes" states interaction can that and of a involve widerange actualpractices policies overtime. havea serious in of states therest theworld few others. disoron is "Domestic order" thuspremised "external" In thisunderstanding. statehood personhood and alikeare not the this Rather. between One oftheseis thatofan essential equality theobvious states notwithstanding claiming sovereignty. displacing that aggression from by within territorythestateintotherealm interthe of of staterelations. modern in world between states different (Slater regions power of is 1997). statehas acquired personhood then its underwrites special status thelocusofsovereignty." ereigntyacquired of thanin an ongoing rather system states.
of spheres influence. diction geographic Mubegin endis thus purely borders delimit of spheres jurisdiction. of Osiander 2001. overnight following usually in PeaceofWestphalia 1648isnowwellestablished (e.g.trade pacts.' Thisis thereason why muchofthespeculation about"thedecline of the state"or "sovereignty bay" is posed as the "end of at recordsuggests thatthere Yet. developed rary political of with retreat nonterritorial the dynastic systems Europe from of ofruleand thetransfer sovereignty thepersonto hood of monarchs discretenationalpopulations as statesovereignty. Spruyt(1994.twosystems of Hong Kong. emphasizes right and relational whichis resist. socialproblems go wellbeyond their individual to on capacity manage their own. forms politysentially nomadickinship tribes from hunter-gatherer through territorial to structures city-states.and the British/ of Authority. territorial is Two issues are crucialhere: that politicalauthority is to not restricted statesand thatsuch authority thereby is not necessarily Authority the exclusivelyterritorial. boundaries national-state 1986. Thus. the suchconditions. (Neocleous2003). 2003. theassumption sovereignty is that is invariably territorial exercised or overblocsofterrestrial tends understand to space. Moregenerally. is esis centralized.Whatis clear. That modern the didnotoccur construed. occupy if however. Irishcollaboration Northern over how Ireland)suggest to indivisible widespread exceptions theruleofabsolute. exercised can be. empires. Absent sovereignty-in senseof of constructed thesocially authoritypractices political or in scattered be exercised nonterritorially pockets may networks. connectedby flowsacross space-spanning in can Fromthisviewpoint. oped morein somehistorical to state.Lake2003). an emerging sovereignty.. use of territory political. (without in it whereas the latter. and Corsomesortofspace (Agnew therefore.the legitimacy ruleby monarchsin the medievalEuropean orderhad a differrulers and that thatof laterabsolutist ent meaningfrom operatingunder more recent democraticjustifications Ifpolitics aboutrule. seaborneempiresinfluence. 441 or a one. countries) other undeveloping situations as that of the Palestinian National (such the government Bosnia..World inContemporary Politics andState Authority Sovereignty Regimes: Territoriality Buttheproblem lackofconformityan absolute of to is becausehiersovereigntyevenmore pervasive simply archicaldominancein worldpoliticsis even more in than between widespread itseffects justintherelation and subordinate ones (or imperial hegemonic) powers situations of 1999. and attriexerciseof power.is territorialthatruleis defined of It in as exclusive over territorial authority a fixed space. authority not necessarilypredicatedon and definedby strictand fixed boundaries. node). Sovsovereignty equally all states by is divisible seems and so the ereignty increasinglyacross world(Delbruck In thiscontext.) derive develop(Agnew1994). wayof example. The criterion determining for where claimsto sovereign juris- . Teschke (Kratochwil 2002). that is in facta strategy has develand economic ends.spheresof alliances. it for claims and in It is sovereignty territoriality. or etc.Modern theory political as territorial: world divided the is geography entirely up intocontiguous units with territorial as the state spatial the basic building block from whichotherterritorial units(such as alliances. Territoriality.theterritorial as it is known contempoin early modern initially theory. 34) claims. recognized tually for the social. Territorialization enhanced the devewas by authority further political economies of and. (Krasner "shared in (such sovereignty" as one China. bridge debatesabout within widely recognized contemporary is is thatpolitical statesovereignty. The last problematic one assumption.the emergence supranational systems suchas theEU. contexts thanin others. and theceding economic of into power the handsof international institutions as the Insuch ternational Fund(IMF) in thecase ofheavily Monetary and anomalous indebted.Smith 2003). This"disaggregated sovereignty" tothe points of statesto shareauthority the face of in willingness and that environmental. an inby lopment mercantilist thatemphasized dustrial capturing powerful capitalism disfrom externalities exponential contiguous positive in costs declines transportation and from tance-decay economies(resource of the clustering external mixes. sovereign that it claimsfinalauthority recognizes higher and no source jurisdiction.not 1995. economic. Teschke 2003). geography.Slaughter to 2004). sovereignty be practiced nodesin places acrossspace withdistributed networks or that are eitherhierarchically arranged reticular In theformer a central directing or case. modern is the stateis verily unique. Theyuse thisdistinction thebasisfor as the explaining proliferation of networks government of officials who share information and coordinatetheir activitiesaround theworld.The foundation legitimate entitieshas changed to bution of legitimacy different of By historically. thecapacity engage(e. states. international a between lawyers increasingly distinguish historic insular which a to sovereignty.g.etc. laborpools. thathas receivedlessattention. Stacy 2003). authority All of the shared across network." the historical is no necessity politiesto be organized for As territorially.later.) within of socialrelations production.
disappears. overment Morespecifically.form power.30nationality democratic (Delbruck process but also see Hudson2001. terms the and "territory" "space" need to be very carefully fromone another distinguished (Durand et al. rarely territorialized 2004). space and powerhave other and some and constituting regulating domains. efficiency. thismayhave lesspossibility susby is in whom on whomanage flows tained. other control sovereign penetrating nominally can supervise statestoday powerful relatively example.g. even ostensibly entities supranational and private govare ernments often accordedas greator even greater than For in authority arestates. organizations and transparency. (Lind ently neatly is only of The mainissueis thatterritoriality one type or wayin whichspace is constituted socially spatiality et and andmobilized (Durand al. In thisregard. from the churchin the medievalcontextto international social and businesses.thatis not centered directly commanded that or cannot be entirely reduced to the territorial temand results from of fore. is in 2002). movements.e. theU. 1992. Centralpossible lessdesirable are overto theregulation of groups given and can command obedience. thisis thenstill networked through space in thosewho manageterritories.. But. sovereigntynot as absolute. to or can of Indeed. Agnew1999.affiliation. with Such power i. excessive in faith thevirtue privatization of of perhaps whatare elsewhere seen as "public"services. and eignty. accountability. transactional balance is increasingly in tipping favorof a networked of that challenges system politicalauthority state sovereignty the singularface of territorialized as effective sovereignty (Appadurai 1996). the hierarchical it .or is.It works division space. state exThus. the authority the stateeverbeen complete. patterns socialassociation interaction the Indeed. marketexchange global social movements)or through (creditrating agenciessuch as Moody'sare one example. involving entities.Palen authority Roberts (e. Yet.. . expertise. Allen 2003). Italy. of There been competing have always of sources authority.The spatiality authority. absolute. maywellbe legitimate.. clear.in NGOs and (as. is increasingly and as crittwo aboutconventional icismof the first assumptions state sovereignty views of state sovereignty implies.withglobalization.. through deployment thatis transformedtheworkings graduated of of sover. onlyby thority.. 2004). tout is latter Territorynotgeography court.. opizedpower.Offner politically Pumain1996.On thecontrary. 1992. example.for that Ong (1999. restson demarcation through ultimately has a Globalization induced situation graduated of sover. Mulligan 34.S. evenwhenappareverhas been.In this way. it authority domination. entities theterms set for territory. isbasedonflows It of Adjacency through space-spanning of division spaceas modalities power torial of thusface access to territories not networks. nongorganizations."states" one type another continue is even serveas lociofpolitical power authority as their rather thanby territorial flows networked by deployed For states. from of but there. spatially the purposesfor which they are formed. everyday Phrasessuch as "divisible" and "graduated" soverareoften usedto givethesenseofan increasingly eignty labilesovereignty not (political authority) immediately with associated territorialized power.Sack 1986). Territoriality blocks rigidly of bordered has space always twofeatures: as of or anddomination control themodality power upon relies which bordering (Gottmann the 1973. (NGOs) today. Authority vested agents impact thepeoplewith orthrough action a distance much at as a as But it comesintocontact.442 Agnew for statepower has (Bobbitt 2002).Hudson1998. plate ofstatesovereignty. exercised but or (eitherbureaucratic charismatic).boundary of territorial through even state maintains control its over eignty. scattered sites. associal and market-based poweris generatedthrough ratherthan and reticular diffusion sociation. see Sinclair2000). Thus. In no case. transacin threats distant security placesand financial direct havelittle in centers tions "offshore" (evenas they acand/or control) rewarding by punishing regulatory of in relation thespatial to tions thatthey efficacy judge their 1994. modalities (Mann 1993. Diffused powercan be territorialized in so faras the networks it but and authoritative. example.. suchsituations. privileged (blocks of thechallenge coercive and to power authority diffused refers power power emanating ofspace)..then. Of course.however. Allen2003). whereby as the of dissemination authoriand control.2 Simplybecause the former in mightbe supersededor supplemented the orof politicalauthority does not mean that the ganization in groups and movements forexample. are as muchfoundations legitimacy are of as popularity and 2003.there of theefficiency accountais widespread and suspicion of the federal oftenleads to This bility government. letscorporate tativecommands.217) claims ample. and terri. only constrained centralstate audefinesare territorially by are networks limited Otherwise. legitimate. In muchofthepopular enthusiasm theEU is driven for by will thehopethat Brussels increasingly Romeas supplant the seat ofpower in mosteffective relation people's to lives. supranational as overlongdistances wellas over eratebetween points It is not theexistence thenature sovereignty territorial for but of of the blocs.military but assets. Weaker . L~vy 2001).
In turn.and its relative on the stateterritoriality.educational provision. bothcentralized diffused and are Today. apparent 443 and serveas a finalseat of authority (2) an accepted of and definition functional geographical scope(territoits which commands rialand nonterritorial) go beyond What has been lacking in and unenforced. itsown in infrastructural has risen imporHistorically. erateeffectively. In otherwords. organizations. Today. International likewisehave both privateand state-run. in of seduction.are not necesfields thatthey in territorial the externality prosarily duce. 1995. Thus. power This tancesincetheeighteenth century. Even the seemingly most Westphalian of states.) security. setherefore. 159) remarks. to territorial not leastrelating the had a built-in bias.and continental-level political entities such as the EU (Cox 1998.it temporarily-its rerequires both communicativeand infrastructural sourcesand a highdegreeof popularacceptance to opMore specifically."Ascribed" is the key term.New deployments infrastatesand structural existing powerboth deterritorialize reterritorialize membershiparound cities and hinterlands. isbecauseelites to have been forced struggles become through political to moreresponsive their and. populations have demanded moreinfrastrucgroups rising pressure of the tural goodsgavea goods. thus will ever. on so A useful to writing approach doing comesfrom the of thehistorical sociology power. statesovereignty be can neither sustained In nor undermined.) co-optation. of however.though places. agency not sustained collective howaction. delivery public Until of sovereignty. "domination not everyis where. as exercise power(as of Sovereignty the legitimate is about ceded. 188) words. Scott 1998).systemsof measure. unheeded at the of associated efforts understanding range practices the has withsovereignty been a meansof identifying of in of effects co-variation the effectivenessstateaureliance on on thority. is the myriad it effects an ascribed of . involved theexercise states all authority different can be thesamefor issue by areas(trade. the one hand.are riddled withauthoritative power networks diffused and/or (basedon centralized power) whoseextension territorial boundaries rencan beyond derclaims absolute to statesovereignty butwhose moot insidetheboundaries critical is to continuing presence their credibility. short. Specifically. Mann's(1984.Hurd1999). once actualized and rendered explicit they signal-indeed. other and functions states that thetwodifferent perform that the for theirclaimsto sovereignty: struggle underpin in one statein elitesand interest groups poweramong elsewhere the and relation elitesand interest to groups of provision public goods that are usuallyprovided In (by publicly states). as a result.without But widely territorially at leasta modicum activecollaboration collective of by actors both on sidesofborders. of these Letus clearly power.and welfareservices in need not be associatedwithexclusivemembership a of conventionalnation-state. is or This through thatcomes intoexistence association and power through assent a result human as of When (Arendt 1958).and co-opted power wellas coercion centralized The precise by (and acceptance of) power. reboostto the territorialization for thetechnologies providing goodshave public cently.then.World inContemporary Politics andState Sovereignty Regimes: Authority Territoriality authoritative command domination. power.g. "Persuasion and coercion alike are of but constitutive authority. combination powermechanisms of assent. by the quintessence state territoriality. Increasingly. ormay them operate and within state's a ormore solely territory either ornonterritorially. distinguish twotypes state denotes Thefirst [despotic sense power the by state power] The over eliteitself civilsociety. terms and infrastructural have been used by power despotic the Mann(1984) toidentify twodifferent in which ways and a governmental acquires usescentralized apparatus In theseterms words. necessarily authority). etc. currencies. through legitimate thepower networks created disintegrate. they are. to a of relies considerable degreeon the extentto whichnetworks of association affiliation and the of parallel boundaries domination. currency. identify. the capacityto delivera wide rangeof public developed power.. trading networks. 6). John as Allen (2003. second [infrastructural to and ofthestate penetrate denotes power the power] activitiescivil of the co-ordinate society through centrally infrastructure. capture positive acrossnetworks infrastructural can be deployed power locatedin discrete that. As Bruce Lincoln puts it. diffused as duced. powers arguably lessterritorializedstateboundaries thanat anytime by since the nineteenth century (Agnewand Corbridge Paasi1999)." evendemarcation meansofborders. (coercion. Indeed. other(e.There is a goods associated with infrastructural Effective and Sovereignty Sovereignty Regimes betweenactorsthatpermits some actorsnot asymmetry just to commandbut also to enrollothersin theirdesires and activities. respectively. externalities. politicalauthority qua sovereignty requires: (1) a governmental apparatusto Political is of authority thelegitimate practice power. regions. at least negation" (Lincoln 1994. differ across etc.
S.certainly thanit wasbefore an theU. basis to sovereignty of But the recasting the territorial and the challenge to central state authority through simultaneous and of scaling-up scaling-down the relevant geographical fieldsof infrastructural powerdeon thepolitical economies scaleofdifferent of pending and regulatory. of moreeconomies scale ofdominant goodsand assets from structural ofthenational the scale statediverge and the morethosedivergences back into each feed otherin complex ways-thenthe morethe authority.even though such a move mightbe helpfulto interestselsewhere in and agricultural manufacturing is Britain. a indicates different A secondexample aspectofthe in nexus.Gill 1994. to its in Iraq and moregenerally.S. despotic power(in Mann'ssense) has historically to rely come muchmore establishing on than itslegitimacy oncewasthecase. involving corporations. and central stateauthority. other and states. upor of can as scaling a fragmentationsovereignty result elites and social groupspursue theirgoals in ways that unpotentiallyterritorially expand or nonterritorially dercutthe authority the centralgovernmental of apparatus. Iraq. This shift in pursuit for torial an of. Iraqi ties to al Qaeda. corporations..the use of Americanmilitaryforcesto invade Iraq in 2003 withoutbenefitof sanction fromthe United Nations had a number of rationales:"weapons of mass destruction" that shifting threatenedthe U. Cutleret al. been to deploy has intelligence.In Britain.and a general religious This the towards U. Consequently.g. Ilgen 2003). therefore.S. effectiveness the [territorial] willbe of state menting eroded and undermined both withinand without" 1995. groupings couldinvolve enhancing territhe of 1999).S. NGOs. Thoughit can be used against ofthepopulation must placated be and largesegments than coerced.S. Direct is coercion lesseffective a modeofrulein modern as states. of has therefore.respectively. hierarchy or theattenuation territorial of in sovereignty theform ofthediffusionauthority of across multinodal a financial network transnational banks. (e.it seemsto have done fortheU. an challenge Consequently. productive. Though and controls deregulating markets) commodity capital financial benefited London's sector. government. . Kobrin1997.In thelongterm. simply recalcitrant minorities.Suchlegitimacyalsofragile.S. policymaking capacity. authority need not always involve singular a focus fixed on state if territories elites and pressure groupsadjust their and identities interests other to territorial (suchas levels and or to localities.621).the including of along ethnicand disintegration prospect internal in diminution worldwide lines. and yet deinvestedheavilyin jobs in othercountries.fisovereignty-territory their nancial elites. and policy-implelegitimacy.This conundrum relatedto the "who is 'us'?" U.g. loyalties nonterritorial entities such as international organizasocial movements. pended on American consumersfor final demand for what theyproduce. Thereis no necessary betweendespotic association. can actually of as tivesovereignty. limited possibility longsovereignty. government (what destroyed authority of was there ofit) ofthegovernment Iraq. Through stimulus reterrorist members anti-American into of cruitment more of seems havemadetheterritory to it networks. anxiety government has the Monetary System been exacjoining European mosteferbated the despotic by powernow exercised within Britishpolitics by London's financial fectively center.. By way of recentexample. (e.S. religious or tions.. and so on. (Cerny At thesametime. theyhad generally as effects thestateterritory on macroeconomic negative had the a whole. empires) shift city-regions.-owned businesses question raised about nominally in the early1990s thatpaid low or no taxes in the U. pushed government regulations of thatwouldenhancethe performance Londonas an center(see Ingham international 1994 on the banking of Britain conflict inCity long-running of Londonvs. it enroll unless can simultaneously andgain term success effecundermine It the consent others. is because respect in of has bereft legitimacy the theinvasion beennotonly of of inthose much therest of but of eyes most Iraqis also of the worldand of largesegments American public Coercivepoweras an elementof effective opinion.Butthisdeside of in had a number devastating efstruction turn inside war a bitter ofresistance fects. Most of these turnedout to be based on poor or false One outcome. be cannot takenfor But establishing granted. ascendancy long-term political using for the the within state. mayalso have they effect the ability the govof on unintended negative directions because they to ernment movein contrary now link interests whoseloyalties generated powerful rather centers than to their themto otherfinancial about British nominal homestates.Rulersneed to establish pleasedrather at least a modicum popularauthority of before they their can achieve is It goals. Both despotic-govpower and ernmental diffuse socialpower work can to together central stateauthority. imperium. example. redistributive publicgoods Brenner "the 1998. suchregulations instance.however. itself evengreater target the 2001 thatstarted rush of theevents 11 September to war. debt-rating agencies. (for relaxing terests). the 1980s.444 Agnew as a of American towards sort imperium power despotic the the U..
Consolidated Open excurrent sovereignty example of this is the effective ercisedby U. power former involves in hands abouttheextent which is to and despotic a judgment effectivelyoutside power often statehas acquired maintains effective legitand such an institutions as the World and international (including imate of The latter to but refers thedegree Bankas wellas distant morepowerful to states). sub-Saharan Intersecting rather thandiscrete the dewhere prevails. Africa. is heavily is tied stateregulated bounded and of Reoflocalelites. .Kahlerand Lake 2003). In thiscase. toriality power) tegration. sovereignty. The (stateinfrastructural on theother. Sovereignty in statesovereignty functionally Regimes complex lengesexisting and oftentimes nonterritorial ways. such as the of and that manystatesendure which is territorial practice. trends notinvariably open macywhenincreasingly to the restof the world. rather categories complexities relating thecoexistence whichexisting statescan be neatly and I slotted. in both cases. This imexercised takeacto overspace as wellas direct countof: (1) itssocialconstruction. as noted such are to previously. example. HongKong Taiwan China). despotic power) on one axisand itsrelative inlocal insurgencies. Newman 2001). recognizing anyactualrealworld case need not exactly character conform one particular and subnational-regional.g. senseis one ofbothdespotic infrastructural have and the founding statesof the Westphalian system power still largelydeployed withina bounded state territory in thrown theirlot withone anotherto create a larger and. And. as socialconstructions. which of ifalsoreliant theassent and cooperation and on of provision public goods operation markets imperialist. But. Thereis no one trend Jacobson Contemporary towards whatsomehave called the "migration aufor can of absolute pressures divisibility sovereignty survive democratic the and the need to establish state's legitithority" (e. which it is particularly AUTHORITY Britain in the nineteenthcenturyalso folCertainly. The two basic becauseof external dependence mismandimensions the typology defined the relative nipulation well as corruption chronic to and are as by of state is also to stateterritoriality subject separatist strength central (state authority agement.Not only central seriously in territorial nonterritorial and maand in question forms. the territorial to But to of someofits infrastructural is difficult deny (Table1).inContemporary Politics World andState Sovereignty Regimes: Authority Territoriality 445 directindeterritorialization statelevel and reterritoriali. power highdegree China is a good testcase forhow long 2001. withinand beyondits nominalnational Classic Globalist Stronger institutions within international boundaries and through CENTRAL STATE influential(such as the IMF).It is apparatus rule. as yet. reprereferring regime the integrative. Weaker Integrative Imperialist lowed a version of this regime. example). politicallyunclassifiable entitythat chalTable 1. Policy. sovereignty effectively timeand than discrete differbetween territorial to into space. third how sovereignty exercised is has over sentedhereby the EU. is a typology themain reach in worldpolitics withnetworked of but therefore.The many entity.. its association perialist of is the (2) regime in all respects exactopposite the with hierarchical and is stateauthority subordination. refer ent levelsor tiersof government the distinctive to thesefour idealtypes sovereignty as across are areas of functional that represented differentially regimes.threats. dimensions status these to define ineluctably the dependent garded political-economic boththe extent stateautonomy the degreeto in the regions. poorinfrastructural and consolidation stateterri. continua. hierarchy ways in whichsovereigntycurrently is territorial control.(even if increasingly at the on dependent foreign zation localandsupranational and a at for scalesofinfrastructural vestment overseas and markets its exports) and despotic are unevenaroundthe world(D. statepolitical central ofeffective authority. twodimensions finefour in extreme cases thatcan be identified ideal to as The othertwocases are less familiar relation for oftheoretical on state and critical discussion empirical both conventional and types purposes perspectives These are relational character. in Infrastructural is weakor nonexistent. becausethepractice sovereignty territorially.S. systems effective to from EU-wide thenational-state that thedifferent levels. it in and LatinAmerica. STATETERRITORIALITY The best Finally. MiddleEast. (3) itsdeployment classiccase. equivalent the erosion stateterritorial of that The second case resembles a story emphasizes most tout sovereignty court. sovereignty. in is The to analysis. regime power Of thefour for theclassic is the theCommon cases. (consider exemplary Agricultural example one closest thestory EU to the for told evenifcentral state authority both entire and frequently aboutstatesovevenherethere be complications the member can statesis weakerthanwheneach of the ereignty. although on of and for was states an independent (for Quiteclearly.3 it categories. Whatis needed.the fourthregimeis the globalist.
Although central stateauthority remains (notrelatively strong the problems its republican of constituwithstanding in tionalism coping with global its to role). closely regime ofcourse. geopolitical in mined thelatenineteenth century theemergence by the as ofa setofrival projects Germany. degree central open borders be beneficial long as statesretainthe can as to the is capacity close themdown. basisofitshegemony The is of immigrants foreign and investment and welcoming of elsewhere. as an openeconomy. The outcomeofthatwarusheredin a periodin which an overarching Cold War led to two competing imperialist regimesof which one (the U. periods a in that from withgeneral trends world history result and mix geopolitical. If the Concertof Europeis its mainhistorical a legacyas new statesformed "balanceof power"in it the of in theyears after defeat Napoleon. technologicomplex ofeconomic. They are ideal typesor models that cannot map exactlyonto real-world cases. Statesotherthan the hegemonic one thatenter intotheglobalist are to regime notlikely the becausetheycan restrict their experience tension and from the military expenditures thus can benefit as longas they retain relatively a globalist regime high of stateauthority. previous imperialist globalist of protectionist presDepression the 1930s reinforced ecoeconomies from suresto seal off territorial foreign this simply nomic competitors. however. goodsand encouraging thesetendencies butat thesametime to being increasingly subject fiscal overextension it endeavors intervene as to globally yet alsoserve demands itspopulation pensions the of for and healthcare benefits. version statesovereignty. regime through globalist to tradeand a gold-sterling commitment free standard. imperialist in andJapan different challenged Britain's ways globalist regime. danger thattheglobalist becomes for always regime imperialist states other thanthedominant one. globalist this the state relies on regime. Plausibly.S. hardened of expense theglobalist Borders of were threatened the expansionism those by they and statessuch as Germany Japanthatsaw powerful as themselves closed out of or disadvantaged the by The Great and regimes.and Tokyo. in and hegemony. HistoricalGeography Sovereignty of Regimes None of the sovereignty regimesis totallynew.4 with associated The classic is.But it also encouraged nationalist This period reached a crescendo with the sentiments. althateach takesvariesover time thoughthe preciseform and from place to place. Given this caveat.. into its The consent. regime. coattempts beenmadeto recruit by and assentas muchas by coercion. (in are increasingly collective the center the of particular) American globalist regime(Martin1994).S. The countriesof Western Europe and Japan. thesenseofa mixofcoercion active to others linewith objectives. intothe optation can Indeed.) had incipient globalist elements. the The neteffect 1875-1945wasto encourage over at of consolidation classicand imperialist regimes the even as one. are cal change.Needlessto say. coEurope outside Europewithimperiof the existed from outset in in alistregimes (suchas theBritish India. globalization be seenas theprocess with necessary and economic (along technological ofenrolling in states theglobalist changes) sovereignty From viewpoint. U. deepened the economic misery. bring in revolution information and telecommutechnologies nications alliedwith end oftheBretton has the Woods in transaction 1970sto lower system theearly monetary costsin financial centers and spurthe deregulation of financial markets the extentthatvarious to figlobal nancialcenters New York.itscentrality world catches between conflicting it two politics political one towards scattered a impulses: thatpresses imperium the (as in Iraq) and one thatpushestowards keeping U.a strongcase can be made fora historicalpattern to their coappearance (Agnew and 1995). Second WorldWar. in London.Murphy (Croxton century 1996). present zation inherently is purpose the and to apmerely historicize contextualize relative over and not of regimes time space. other In words.retained a relatively high degree and the rapid expansion of of central state authority.446 Agnew four nineteenth temintheearly century. a a relatively British weak that.theFrench and the Dutch in the East Indies) and with Africa. of the so-called Westphalian as it emerged a potentially practical only although really in form thenineteenth 1999.Otherwise. Perhaps periods to nineteenth from can be identified the early century in combinations soverof the present whichdifferent withdistinctive have prevailed geograpeignty regimes coincide these hies to them. is The contestable. The purposeof thissectionis to give a Corbridge sense of the historical of geography effective sovereignty since the presumedemergence the modernstate sysof .Not surprisingly. sometypes infrastructural wellbeyond of power deployed was This order underBritain's boundaries. pearance sovereignty overthepast of a to provide totalaccount world history twohundred years.the periods heuristic the of for rather thandefinitive the purpose exploring relative incidence sovereignty of Anyperiodiregimes.S. have other states. however.
perregime. In reasons. Association of South East Asian Nations [ASEAN]. Americawas firmly They contributed transaction costs reduced identities. firming national up the revenues raised national within economies. and other actors Finally. Classicandglobalist EastandLatin theMiddle antithetical. incompatible thecurrent thenthis." Second. compete global and Sovereignty Currencies Regimes demneedsempirical This largely abstract argument currencies In of onstration.then.So. globalconflict forexample. WhentheU. and possibly Russia. of dynamics national-state graphical is of a medium exchange.the deepening the EU perialist sincethelate 1980srepresents major the of example the construction an integrative of Thereare. unregulated andservices. (not etc. people"(Goodwin fluidmedium in which 4). .Simmons authority in roseto prominence themid-nineteenth rencies only in and as Europe North century stateauthority Western to established. banks. exchange-rate between US$ (backedbygold) and the maincurthe rencies Western of untilits tended. the other. thefirst are interesting three for place.As a result. "where challenges thepractice areparticularly of[sovereign state] territoriality apparent of the various in the present impacts gloage. a of candidates sucha soverfor ever. is frequently one of the most visible examples of state sovereignty.S. thisstimulated worldwide the of spread a new "market access"modelofglobaltradeand investment. in 1970s. Onlywhere course between their and pastdependence theglobalist in regime (as incipient American sovereignty in East Asia) wasthispathavoided. Unfortunately. oney a belief itisprimarily "[m] with other has that tobe shared 2003. many parts the world."it is in the monetary according to Helleiner (1999. National (Cohen 1998. for unrestricted of pursuit a globalist sovereignty In of the however.because of its symbolism speculators. Alongwith actions a range newpolicies from U.howregime.. India. Previous periods faded away. authority against reproducing the imperialist states couldsteera regime.-dominated international existing such institutions.all remainas the best surviving largecountries. least that displayedon coins and banknotes). theyaspiredto classic of the sovereignty. what mightbringit to an end? The majorconflict potentialtodaylies betweenthe globalist on regime. America. ofstate should on balization theterritoriality sovereignty to obviousin relation the geobe mostimmediately Because currencies. and those trappedin the imon perialist regime.to redisintegrationthelate 1960sand early inforce territorial to sovereigntythosestates the basis in whosecurrencies convertible were within As former it. could as a of conflict interests globalist regimes produce major for reach. the of of goods." Thus.309). the WTO).S. colonial countries achieved from late independence the 1940s down into the 1970s. is a of ception thatthisis simply new version the imIn of regime. thecontext state sovereignty. as theIMF andtheGATT (after 1994. number possible should U. andother the vertently up economiesto relatively flowsof capital. through a andprovided means ofcurrency minting (seigniorage). The Bretton something Woodsmonetary basedon a fixed system. too.Even thoughasymmetric in orthodoxsecurity thistensionlies at the heart terms. etc). the (e. the inin rise regime gives toa globalist regime Europe tegrative with one. 2003b). Europeand Japan. the one hand. (Helleiner of one ofthemainexamples infrastructural But power.as the SovietUnionand its alliesessentially abandoned their becauseof itsfailure deliver to ecoimperialist regime nomicgrowth political and thisliberated participation. States such as China. examplesof the operationof the "classic" sovereignty regime. This makes it a relatively over its issuance and managementis always authority an vulnerableto challengefrom arrayof actors (central investmentbanks. taxes the on to their states payfor for through purchases from incomes capitalism emanating industrial increasing are currencies also. to realm.S.g.inContemporary Politics World andState Sovereignty Regimes: Territoriality Authority welfare statesacrossstatesin these regions created akin to the classic regime.S. national also currencies seem to be losingtheir many havemuchenlarged becausethey either character geoand the banking graphic scope (becauseof electronic or have across ease ofcurrency borders) they exchange currencies a wide for beeneffectively by replaced foreign of of (not range transactions leastthestorage wealth).S. The are however. government actedin theearly 1970s to protect domestic its a from series external of economy shocks in initiated the 1960s(byabrogating Bretton the WoodsAgreement a dollar-gold of it standard). theU. U.Together withthe end of the Cold War. There seems no good reason to think that the present one has unlimited staying power. transnationalcorporations.S.they feature central of state and are a keymaterial symbolic cur2000).decisions by governments share a about whetherto maintaina national currency. Europe. 447 of muchcontemporary in. inadfurthered opening oftheU.) and yet. also basically regimes. terms tradefortheir mainproducts the weakness their and of central state worked inmany cases this.-sponsored the eignty regime globalist regime falter the FreeTradeArea of the Americas.-Chinaconflict overtradeand exchangecurrent If of is ratevaluation an example thistension.
and local actorsfindthemselves Thus. imperialist thatstatefailure stresses classical the theory monetary and of radical necessitates decoupling domestic moneis and tary policies. These (Widmaier "monetary or views to of reflect. Theyreflect of basedon socialized influential actors understandings interests" their 2004. at the of itself. a standard reserve) (or currency rebetweena transnational lationto which other currencies denominat. sovereignty regimes.437).exampleof an intersection are is and a "globalist" regime sovereignty process for ed.no single Agreement the early has prevailed. ways tendtowork with to national respect anygiven territory. other managed by is ofa classic currency. Currency question.S. onlycontemporary is in freely. and is a preferred currency transacting currency of is the mainmetric transnational the U.5 This suggests change-rate arrangement thatmonetary a of involves variety politiglobalization cal-economic not a processes. globalist that statesshould a approach represents neoclassical the work their and retreat letmarkets magic. understandings inrelation thedifferent to and state market performance that the structural positions vis-a-vis worldeconomy in. in both cases.which national-state currency of are In thecontemporary there still world.S. examples dominates stateterritory the population a and thatreflect "classic"statesovercurrencies territorial has restricted accessto currencies wider of cirin is But years awayfrom eignty. global that and tradeand commerce themaincurrency other in a alliance (3) theshared. in some world this a of regions.in paralleling foursovereignty regimes.floats to a certain widelyamong world financial The from wider world the economy. for Given the foreign dominant economicrole of the U.6 thenet trend recent culation a fixed a rate. of a geography money provides wayofbothillustrating the typology sovereignty of and showing the regimes and territorial nonterritorial theseregimes work. the states classic case can be seenas basedon theKeynesian logic the market that statescan mitigate failures. an externalfloating exchangerate.is pegged (or against in issued (2) the transnational.substitute a national with global one a one. theintegrative a mixofKeynesian/ in of the inside and neoclassical/outside grouping states arenot theditherefore. except through exchange this the One ofthebestexamples toward others. four currency processesare as follows: reThese processes map onto the foursovereignty Table1 (see Table casestaken from with four the gimes decisions thepart stateand other on of 2). leastfor geography money.whose sovereignty central stateauthority. newone. Currency Regimes REGIME SOVEREIGNTY Classic Globalist Integrative Imperialist TerritorialChina DOMINANT CURRENCY Transnational PROCESS Shared Substitute US EU Latin America . is usually process dollarization. onedegree another. but rectresult materialist of by pressures are mediated and actors theunderstandings bring governments other situations. a mediumof capitalflight and to Processes Sovereignty and Table2. in (4) the substitute. simply single imperialism or free-floating market and Le(Bernhard capitalism Thereare four in whichcurrencies blang1999). suggests there something is useful aboutthefourfold theoretically schemaofsovereignty The regimes. a hedge againstinflation the nain tionalcurrency. to their material in a (1) theterritorial.448 Agnew financial centers localelites. in worldwide ex1970s. the This fact. regime or mechanism controlled float.The substitute currency is particularly as important a store of wealth in local banks. whicha transnational currency substitutes eitherofficially unofficially all or or in transactionsfor the nominal territorial many of currency a givenstate. regime China. that.and a how to manage globalone provide common a metric forexamining descriptive the merits the typology of of In other the contemporary words. The US$ commerce. ways To be morespecific aboutthe connections between and monetary first globalization sovereignty requires the take on currencies identifying processes whereby distinctive with states mapand relationships particular identified pingtheseontothesovereignty regimes preSince the collapse of the BrettonWoods viously. which formal monetary full either union(as operates through monetary with the Euro and the EU) or throughan exchange-rateunion among economic equals with an internal managedfloatand. whichthe currency is insulated and whoseeconomy thereby float onestate(invariably a powerful circulates managed by one) shocksemanating degreefrom monetary centers. theUS$ in a therenminbi yuan). processes.
Theymust witha transnational that downborders currency breaks and challenges hold of national the currencies over a not the rangeoftransactions. blocsthatusedthesameor closely lonialcurrency peg2002).9 creaseoffrom to 6 percent theworld has this to domestic investment. a result. even theyare But closedmonetary coexist hardly totally spaces. Allied 3. theextent thatcertain territorial currencies reflect weakness the of their national for economies. of in the holding a less volatiletransnaproblematic. but especiallysince 1987. aresubstituted bythe they use of transnational currencies. Thrift 1994). exchange-rate The mechanism associatedwith globalist the is thefree float. 2002Chinaaccounted 16 percent the secondonlyto theU.8 percent). growth 2003.Goodwin 2003). (McGregor Since 1978.0 for of In percent). Many thisintersection between substiexperienced currency tution what calltheimperialist and I sovereignty regime. suchas the US$. as domestic greweight1990 and fold-to morethan $380 billion-between an 2000 and 2003 thisrepresented in2003. the Chinese model a economyhas gone from command-and-control one.37-38). NAFTA (16. which accounts for over 40 percent of GDP (compared to a minuscule l. in theworld economy. But the central has retainedmuch more control over its government national economy than is characteristicof most . leastbyencouraging deof markets financial at centers velopment currency within their This territories. Closedoff thecapitalist economy becomea 1949 untilthelate 1970s. and East Asian cities (Martin 1994.165).8 of the four is withreference the to currency processes discussed specific example. One hundredyearsago a significant 449 movedfrom richto of proportion worldcapitalflows comuchofthiswas within Of poorcountries.Much of its growthhas directinvestment been drivenby foreign (FDI).anypretense political pressures. course.' The only regime current of is example a shared currency theEuro. through variant thereof thatinsulate decisions from monetary domestic In bothcases.1 percent in Japan). thenit has been (Daly century" since 1978 as a majorglobal China'srapidemergence economicactor that is perhapsits most remarkable from world to feature. as basedon massive machine ble exporting foreign well China's exports investment. important informal formal or dollarization. the Currently. That thisis no longer (Helleiner ged currencies currencies thatthe use of substitute the case suggests state elites todayis more a questionof subordinate than storm for looking a monetary in an economic port tousecurrency a as state ofa hegemonic actively looking to mechanism subordination. at territorial is sacrimonetary sovereignty essentially ficedto dampen increase inflation. 31). of and nationals governmentsmany China of If the industrializationAsia was the "mostspecof tacular economic happening the secondhalfof the twentieth 1994. moreinand. Between of total. of2002. Hale and Hale 2003. foreign and reducethe proclivity growth government for in LatinAmerican countries recently have spending. Of muchofthemonetary flow monetary across territorial boundariestoday tends to be between centersin the richest financial countries." to reduce risk throughthe fine-tuning portfolios" of (Taylor2004. Wall Street(in New York)and the City (in London) are the keyplaces of authority withaffiliates collaborators and all scattered over the worldeconomybut withthe densestpresence in North American. as pacity of moresteel(25. UndoubtChina has enteredinto the worldeconedly. investment.Broz1999. particular. susceptibility the of Yet. as evidenced the tionalcurrency by of domestic foreign and holdings such currencies large and centers) the by salting" (in offshore other"dollar countries.8 percent theworld China consumed or total) than the EU (16.. This is because mostglobal flows involvedin "diversification are "intended finance.g.however. US$ is themost ofthetransnational either currencies. but to a state-managed.associatedas it is with project pan-European the of unification. on omy largely its own terms. European. market-driven.S.Chinahas quickly and in trading financial major presence boththeworld's Chinahas becomean incrediIn economies. course. Helleiner currency systems to 1999.Historically. e. But a secondissueconcerns howthecurrency processes operate undera givensovereignty geographically The and are regime. is an opening ofpossiup bilities theredistribution for ofpolitical authority beyond cities central whose banks and finance ministries capital must nowwork share to with other in actors the power realm. even though few have engaged in relatively countries or Each full-fledged official dollarization. through so-calledcurrency boardsor some frequently.inContemporary Politics World andState Sovereignty Regimes: Authority Territoriality states(including As China) holdas a reserve. territorial shared currency processes the mostevidently territorialized. national such currencies as the many out of US$ emerged oftheunification moregeographicallyvariegated (see. export explosion genas and a for erated hugedemand rawmaterials localfirms cahave vastly increased investors production foreign As in suchsectors steeland cement. for a incentive of demands foreign capital provides major however some statesand local actorsto findshelter. theUS$ is alsothecurrency is themain that instrument of globalization. Finally.
(Kuroda 2003). was on FDI. insulaBy way of example forthis criticalmonetary the crisisof 1997-1998.7 to theUS$ to segregate planned the Chinese economy the from restof the world.4 to theUS$. the panded monotonically Chinese of securities climbed a at purchase U. not least fromthe ethnic Chinese business networks that provide foreigncapital for Chinese development fromSan Franciscoand Vancouver. its pleasing foreign is is thiscurrency Whether system sustainable an One danger comesfrom of overheating open question. (Kynge of comesfrom efforts foreign the A secondthreat of such as the U. Canada. Before thatdate.then.therateagainst US$ hasbeenvirtually at Rmb8. the renminbi dervaluedagainstthe US$ (Swann 2003).however.and thushelping finance Treasury American federal and current accountdeficits. This the (the control servedto bothkeep Chinesegoodscomhas in market those of other as petitive the American countries havebecomelessso becauseoftheappreciationoftheir currencies the against US$ since2001 and to buildup massive whichthe Chinese US$ reserves has been investing inter alia.Chineseofficials spoke controls of openly easing-notofstrengthening-capital 2004). this chasesstagnant shrinking point.The relatively exchange encourages fixed rate both to in denominated exports theU. In turn. he alsopoints to and theroleofcommitment lowinflation thelackof influence government on policyof local and foreignin ownedenterprises China thatlobbied unsuccessfully dea for devaluation. Two majorquestions exchange arise: howdoesthis work is it sustainable a world and in whereconventional statemonetary seems sovereignty under considerable pressure? The Chinesemanaged-float system beganin 1994.Though therewas some pressure frominternational business to devalue the renminbi. as well as from and Southeast Taiwan.S. A and a globalizing worldeconomyare territorial currency one with the other. monetary system. three at (Hale andHale 2003. As ofNovember was no signof either. managed should note how much however. such as China withan increasingly fora country heavy in worldtrade (Leblang 2003). renminbi a The is currency homogeneity territorial whosevalue is moreor less fixed currency the of market the and against currency itsmainexport maincurrency world of trade. allows China to profit whilemaintaining internal externally and stability. budget tradedeficit withChina exIndeed.as the American between1996 and 2003. investors.largely goals than political. Indeed. As of summer presence was approximately percentun40 2003.during Asian financial Chinese economyremainedlargelyunaffected because the renminbi not convertible capital accounts. Treasury much faster especially 2000 (Economist after rate.28. Asia. wouldhaveto strengthen authorities Chinese monetary in exchange capital controlsand intervene foreign of the markets suppress appreciation the renminbi to there 2004. of by position tradeand financial a behind to the China'sability exploit US$ by"hiding" thosewho wouldchangethe Chinese float. government of the a was mainly question maintaining government's of and But to self-imagecontrol autonomy.1 percent Chinafor sectors thefirst of the the times ratefor wholeof 2000.S. One of the mainmechanisms for contemporary control beenthemanaged central has float of continuing theChinese renminbi yuan)against US$. The official rate in exchange waspegged 1994at 8. investment as ofshrinking margins more profit problem the At or demand.S.therenminbi severely was overvalued at about1. 2003). Much of China'sgrowth since the mid1990s is owed to thisexchange-rate It system. the Chinesegovernment more pendence concernedabout other. But the pressureis likelyto continue. . asset investment sector. U. thecountry keepoutexternal to shocks to and currency itself a destination massive cultivate as for direct foreign investment on low laborcostsand a stable premised rate againstthe US$. This hands an states. dollars. andFDI inflows U. which then push up the exchangereserves. Secretary the politicalleaders. in.so is on investorscould not suddenlywithdrawtheir funds as theycould elsewhere.theChinese Hong Kong. but in December1996 did the Chinesegovernment only IMF Article andsetabout 8 the accept making renminbi for convertible current account transactions. to the to Treasury.S.8 percent a of indicates highdegree excessca39).S. foreign in 12 money (up supply from percent 2001to 20 percent assetinthis morefixed in 2003). themanufacturing As fixed grew in all in half by31. persuade Chinesegovernment move in to renminbi order avoid theimto a freely floating Disturbed sanctions. evenin thefaceofincreased So.particularly not easilyharmonized.con2003.9 Since the fixed 1996. encourages the thusexacerbating vestment speculative by capital.450 Agnew thatthis resisted Wang(2003) claims this. government to boththe bonds. the tion. labor costs in businesses American investing Chinalower andAmerican andreaphigher customers/workers profits receive lower prices and low-paying jobs (both in the same buildingat Wal-Mart) fromthe currentsystem. Thisdisparity of the rateencourages growth The fixed exchange pacity. usesthemonopoly therenminbi of within China. raw mateChina has also increasedits imports(largely rials) at a higherrate than its exportsover the period 1998-2003. grew sumption only 8.
S.S..S. liabilities exceeded dollar lem.Gowa 1983).. bemanufacturing jobs tween beginning theGeorge Bushpresidency the of W and summer 2003 disappeared becauseof competition from China:an amazing out ofevery one sevenjobs in American No American ever manufacturing.Although hot-money difullconvertibility Europeancurrencies As of had soughtto eliminate.the system in deep trouble. That thislossoccurred a timewheneven manyservice at sector jobs werealso becoming vulnerable relocation to overseas from U. political acceptance of the systemin the U. outcome .By1960. they reference capitalcontrols.g. Multinational the after the Second market parked powers World theU. by place in New Hampshire of between U.. a theregulatory were where intothismarket dollars flowed result. of major jobs Many the 2. Whatevertheintention. predicted Triffin's by againstthe US$ did not occur until 31 December 1958.the economist hengreen that Triffin predicted thiswouldbe a probhad Robert U.and ultimately Speculationconsequently (Blyth2003. pegged The was By the 1960s. theEurodollar dollar Woods offshore representatives1944)-the Bretton in of the financiers engage exactly type to rates a Agreement-pegged exchange against dollar-gold abledprivate Woodsregime standard theperiod for that from transactions theBretton 1945until1971. became On the otherhand.S. software andcallcenters) programming only madethepolitical tension muchgreater that (Economist of 2003).S. credibility to loomed large be cast into doubt"(Eicof thiscommitment might as 1996. president oversucha hemorrhagingjobs oversucha of presided short of period time(Beddoes2003). theone hand.the On Eurodollar theso-called thatthey meant and of economic recovery Europe Japan was but reserves "this attractive accumulated dollar large conabouttheir was no question onlyas longas there dollarbalances into vertibility gold.World inContemporary Politics andState Sovereignty Regimes: Territoriality Authority enormous to competitive advantage businesses operating in China versus in businesses the U. It rested initiallyand finally the capacity of on (and centralbanks) to regulatetheircurgovernments for lemma. government British the and accountdid slowdownthedevelopment the (mainly govcapital "enmarket But ernment in market. known thenameofthe banks. extendedto its sphereof influence duringthe Cold War (Ruggie1982).S. and elsewhere restedmore on its stimulusto open.S. Althoughthe system the "embeddedliberalism" that the U. U.S. the (e. foreign gold beto there woulda rush cashin dollars their reserves.S. 116). seen as an attemptat reasserting other words.U. goldreserves. resulting a in lossofAmerican in relevant sectors.S. 240). 99). Thisthreat could authorities fore American the debate refrain international of becamea major monetary in the 1960s. encouraged As one of the victorious businesses from U.8 million lostin theU.S.given that a fixed exchange rate system to seemed to deliverdecreasingbenefits the American then it would be best to abandon it territorial economy. andEurope countries as Indiaand the to such China(e.the dollarincreasingly in rather thana territorial a transnational currency the to Woods system sense it had to be forthe Bretton marin function Beginning 1958. As early 1947. relative to fixed differentials on econotaxes and to gain interest-rate exchange-rate system theinternational Thissystem.Whetherthis is possiblefor a government still for reasons maintaining on seemingly intent political a classicsovereignty thepolitical moregime-keeping exercised theCommunist and nopoly by Party reestabthe lost to lishing prestige whenChinawas subject the of in and depredations colonialpowers the nineteenth twentieth centuries-remains be seen. by by Attempts American the where it was negotiated to correct the imbalances manipulating U.-located governments myofthetime. to early 451 standard an rencies by provided theUS$ against external of a against fixed price gold. it was a deeply territorialized of managingcurrenway cies. of dollars was the increasing beyond leakage problem of the shoresthrough accumulation dollar American of banksand theemergence central reserves foreign by market.S.S. the worsened.But once foreign the relative U. system collapsed" The action taken by PresidentNixon in 1971 in be BrettonWoods can plausibly unilaterally abrogating In classic sovereignty. Banking Regulation whichcappedinterest in investment the Eurodollar the U.S. devalue. dollars kethad sprung in Londonto service beyond up As of domain boththeU. Only a radicalrestructuring the Chinese and monetary system through relaxing capitalcontrols theUS$ andother currencies freely to circulate allowing betweenChinesefinancial centers such as Shanghai andHongKongand foreign is likely assuage ones to the critics. multilateral trade than on its particular as a strategy organfor properties izing internationalmonetary relations (Eichengreen can be seen as part of 1996.a Eurodollar properly.. to then lent out without ratesin The UnitedStates Q. foreign If countries wantedto convert reserves.g.the opportunity arbitrage againstthe profits was dollarand the othermajorcurrencies overwhelming.S. andBritain. was themainagentofimposing accounts avoidAmerican to in Eurodollar a dollarfunds War.
Germany. of by augured theEurodollar in the ministers of Arranged discussion among finance theG-5 (theU. as capitalcontrols consuch and certed intervention. Federal Reservetriedto wring inflation of the American out But in the 1980s. floating against the dollar. Treasury of thoseof centralbanks.Hochreiter al. 59). as 3). the dollarhas inheriteditsrolefrom Bretton Woods whenit was "the central for numeraire" the system a whole (McKinnon 2001. a sense. Thisisbecause. others money providing one thing. therefore. Davidson2002).. to the dollar-and tervention currency-often pegging central heldbyforeign bondsare widely U.S. Over is becausethedollar notjustAmerica's currency. it floated freely againstothermajor currencies thana return to 1996).partly response perin to economy. copewith volatility exchange and options.thefloating was exchange-rate system formalizedin 1978bya secondamendment theArticles to of of the Agreement the IME This removed roleof gold and legalized and countries promote to floating obliged in exchange ratesby authorizing IMF to the stability the oversee monetary of This policies members. industrialized countries movedtoward greater exchange rateflexibility abolishing and inby targeting reducing terestrate interventions. Thisincrease to the led of lending international banksthatproduced by spate thedebtcrisis countries received for that loansbutthen werefacedwithdeclining terms tradepluslargeinof terest-rate in increases the 1980s.S. For is theworld monopoly. another.in Chicago NewYork. 2002). andBritain) France. about the dollarthanits role What is moreimportant as a monetary standardis the revolutionary hollowing It thatit has facilitated. economy a natural territorial in a world about 150 potential of currencies. percentage unit US$ withpeggedexchange of IMF members arrangements in in from about77 percent 1977to36 percent declined with in the 1997and34 percent 2001. Treasury as banks and treasuries official exchangereserves" and as 2001. of take the form managedfloatsor relatively a the comingof the Euro offers potentialalMoreover. oppositehas happened. is the in wasa system which dollar liberated gold. exchange The net effect the post-Bretton of Woods turnof has events. something a "leap in the dark"(Eichengreen knewhow it wouldwork. in and accruefrom goodsand services pricing invoicing The trade international in one territorial currency. currencies out ofotherterritorial is now a directmeans of exchange in many countries currencies. in 1975. of ternative currency wideruse to the dollar. particularly inuse the dollaras their prime governments Europe.Consequently. designed in increased such markets.S. billsareheldoutside of one-half all dollar bondsare heldas reAlmost one-half U.as the U. (McKinnon now currencies float territorial and more more nominally with thedollar(and other currencies) the against freely The as thecommon ofcomparison.3). giventhatworldoil prices in weredenominated theUS$. currency. world nowon standard 2001. borders. fact are of that commodity exchanges major many theworld's and in located theU. the maincurmany for of capitalflowsrency denomination international Outside of at shorttermand interbank.S. justa matter America. If anything. fillip for isnot The dollar. foreigncurrency the can bidsand offers be madeagainst one exchange of economies scale For significant currency. coordination Policy among did countries helpto somedegree reducing in volatility in foreign markets. also gives a further to thedollar. The US$ has become "the vehicle currency the inin terbankspot and forward exchange markets. been to make the US$ into a transnational In currency. 1996.many currenciesstill freely fixedpegs. as futures bred speculation and further of volatility (Strange1994. to transnational have argued. The large quantity dollars introduced world into financial markets the by in increases thepriceofoil had an adOPEC-inspired ditional stimulative effect. manyestablished monetary policiescoexisted withthenewsystem.S..Japan.Davidson 2002). No one really 1970s. McKinnon (McKinnon.Rather (Eichengreen. at leastas yet.452 Agnew and industrial goodsand services.in it of manyfinancialcentersirrespective country.the curtrade and for rencyof invoice forprimary commodity . if in costs tremendous savings transaction occur justone All is chosenas a vehiclecurrency.the dollar was not "dethroned"when the official exchange rate paritiescolthe lapsed in 1971. dollar a de facto is the someeconomists.S. Butthetrend flexible to from fixed rates more arrangements exchange to and both can be exaggerated in general with respect Ratherthan freefloating againstthe dollarin particular.while percentage from12 percent increased arrangements free-floating in in 1975 to 25 percent 1997 and to 32 percent in et 2001(IMF 1997. becomean evenmoretransnational than currency that market the 1960s. thatstillhave theirown territorial Indeed. and partly theincreased to sisting stagflation popularity ofideasofmarket over most superiority state regulation. financial New to devices. U. was all of 1996. As the currencyof the world's largest territorial witha long-established dominant and economy presence in world financial markets. the was from and after1973. theUS$ as a territorial theUS$ has therefore. Judson to rivalthisglobalreach. Certainly.particularly servesby foreign and of Japanand the People'sRepublic China (Porter Othercurrencies cannot.In the 139).therefore.
etc. therefore.And it was not until the late 1980s. on integration monetary at In the European Community (EC).theU. authority. had to leave the Snake.) It wasprecisely this of however. have a stakein preserving dollar's the roleas a transnationalcurrency even as the U. particularly thedollar. (McKinnon four were the with drawals 2001.Eventually. cation through One is as an has therefore. Underthis arrangement. will policy to to havetorely foreign-owned andforeign for on madeiteasier thesystem respond the central members capital banks(evenifin dollars) finance domestic of the dollarin the late 1980s. McKinnon (2001) argues. manFrance (as competitive internationally in labor-intensive across and a in the thiswasabandoned. also are They as in sector powerful political proponents. to its relative econstrengthening As Bretton Woods'appearedto be 'minilateral of of omy.S. current account deficit balloons. Therewereno withsoft credit withtherestoftheworld" line wholehad one of 2. U.8).Wolf bridge Agnew 2004). new visionof in Europe based on these concernsfoundexpression the of Delors Report 1989 and in the MaastrichtTreatyof conversioncosts December 1991.167).S. uses itsdollarto finance large current accountand federal deficits budget (e. . had two distinct origins.Corand all 1991. was to rememberswithoutstimulating protectionism move the threatof membergovernments engagingin The onlyway to do these exchange-rate manipulation. however.25 percent. a setof moment. an was one of the ways of forging integrated one way of liberalizingtrade among Concurrently.The Snakedidnotlastlong. a net importer 69. is thefinancial the other that Britain.As a country witha largefinancial services the from sector. Theseincluded ability European Foreigners notneed to carethatmuch may reduce abouttheAmerican current accountdeficit.S. (Eichengreen capital unbalancing own gaining that the at kinds jobs. reinvigorate The EuropeanUnion Though what todayis knownas the EU can traceits rootsback to the European Coal and Steel Community of the early 1950s and the European Economic Comof munityof 1957. sector a vested of the dollarexpandaroundthe world. globalcapital (Blyth 453 the creationof a shared currency. oftheEU. At the of uses sametime. alsobenefits indirectly the thattheUS$ serves a transnational as globalist regime This has in interest seeing use currency. 255). to the end of Bretton Woods. first "theSnake"ormanaged to the six This was a collectivearrangement whereby rateswithin members peggedtheirexchange original bands.S. the is also of the its Specifically.S. to compete unemployin butAmericans a different welfare are maintain ment. only country has botha chronic current-account deficit and a majorfinancial services ofliberalized markets sector. Eliminating currency market. a "uniquely of persisting highinflation. Italywas allowedto (Britain because The Achilles'heel of the US$ as a transnational havea 6 percent a bandfor "transitional" period is whereasthe system a as it currency thatalthough givesthe U.S. Germanmark role assumedthe strong-currency thatthe dollarhad Woods. fiscal expansionary policies. 1978. 2003. 2. as governments adopted did suchas France in 1976. in unionbecame a major fact.2 percent totalglobal "Europe's flows 2001. The cieswere floating against simultaneously the Snake (EMS) replaced Monetary System European the in 1979.S. thatof thoseactors whocommand is often thanthat it..The economic response is other muchmoreclearly building European political: unification. European monetary and createa singleEuropeanmarket "Europeanproject. economy competition sectors theMitterrand to in because where is less it turbulent government mainly fiscal Once on embarked an expansionary policy. attempts recurrencies gave rise volatility amongEuropean ducing in float theearly 1970s. U. those dollars havea stake keeping the in foreigners holding up of flow dollars intotherestoftheworld. Ofcourse. Theyhave an in interest keeping wholesystem motion. italso (as inrelations China)opensup the during 1980s. Thisis one ofthemain sovereign features the transnational of the US$. programs thefaceof entirely. convergence ufacturing) portends future which U. greater ofthenominally state. European question dollar liberalize to the exerted through floating pressures the labor marketsand pension programs.S.thata fully-fledged monetary unifiobjectiveof the organization.25 percent mainly effects on of becausetheoil shock 1973had devastating and the weakercurrencies. risks in resilience" its 1996. dollar still thecurrency theU.g. withtheU.the by they bandshad within currencies idea ofpegging unchanging currenwhenthe European runitscourse. Eightof nine EC underBretton performed in the EMS fromthe outset countries participated was the sole exception). economy (through lossofcertain in order provide transnational acrossthe countries to a concerns totherest of emerged currency nonmonetary firms the of the world. andJapan. this the in For as America's creditors reason." A the through removalof capitalcontrols.but the first years in U.S. it was not until the disintegration BrettonWoods in 1971 that much effort was made to some sortofmanagedcurrency implement system among memberstates.World inContemporary Politics andState Sovereignty Regimes: Authority Territoriality of Its and currency mosttransactions.
(Eichengreen it toward a replaced in the 1990swas the movement shared a and currency declaringsetoffiscal monetary by for criteria accession monetary to union." thesametime. has been the sole legal tender in all of the then-EU countriesexcept Britain. tooktheform encouraging useofthe US$ as partofa "goldstandard (Rosenberg diplomacy" to thatwouldbring 1985. IncreasingLatin Americannationalism.The first stage. idea was to "create golddollar the in tered NewYork. government spending etc. economic competition.24) a the bloc. political setting and government inflation. currency worldwide portant it the insideEurope. The transition a shared to has currency gonethrough three as in and stages foreseen theDelorsReport agreed to in theMaastricht (Artis Treaty 1992). Rosenberg's (1999. 219).The implementation wentremarkably Since January 2002. diplomacy could involveencouraging straightforward adoptionof the meant This dollarization.S.171-81). usually not the theuseoftheUS$ alongside territorial currency.it is peculiar overfiscal control stateshave retained thatindividual have ceded control overmonetary even as they policy to markets. can "European monetary integration be bestunderstood as a political ideasand compromise involving divergent within between France preferences Europe. Without forward monetary to union. the earlytwentieth of the this century.The new priority . the Euro smoothly.and convergence treaty obligations.-shouldbe understood justas goalsin not targets. violated excessive of citsrule (no morethan3 percent GDP) thatthey whenplanning sharedcurrency the agreedto follow The EU's fiscal therefore. government desired enhanceFrance's to inand Europe's from U. has replaced markand Critically. rules..These critecentral banks from ria-freeing control. theformer created France and as countries. mostimportant curthe dollaras the two previously in in flows. however.One is thatit is already transnational it the in that. of course.from 1994 to 1999.The secondstage.official the for was to discourageuse of the dollar as a substitute was in territorial currencies the region.the sharedcurrency simply is a new territorial for area. rival de facto to [British] sterling also dollar At standard. LatinAmerica over influence monThe U.saw theremoval capitalcontrols from of for members.the moving fear also was thatthepolitical ofEuropean uniproject wouldalso founder thefaceof the transnafication in threat Europe tional to from andJapanese U.1999) monetary stability the to American business opand makeit easierfor region unitsthatwere erateif countries currency possessed In in identical valuetothedollar.cenwords. appear (Major2003).and Sweden. for financial transactions. Germany the wanted see its to dependence reunification to acceptedas unthreatening the restof If the Bundesbank-like assumedby the role Europe. If exchange policy theECB and theforeign a the latter has tendedto lead toward more"Angloin financial cenAmerican" market capitalism Europe's serious has ters(Dyson2002. of Fiof nally. and Until unenforceable unchangeable. what the EuropeanCentralBank (ECB) represents Germans wantedout of the system. By the 1920s. simultaneously in between levels at the there someparallelism Europe is are this which fiscal monetary and policies made. Denmark. the have acquireda currency can potentially French that the challenge US$ as a transnational currency.S. But it also has currency a larger 2003). alongsidethe existing first territorial currenciesand then insteadof them.S.363). 1990 to 1994.454 Agnew features do setit apart that from a coupleofother being a curjust that. the various advantagesof issuinga territorial currency and serious currentaccount crises (identified earlier). needed of thatthe economicthinking thetimesuggested activistmonetary policies conspiredto limitthe substitutionof nationalcurrencies the dollar.saw the of and indicators policies convergence macroeconomic and planningforintroduction the new currency. which have chosen to remainoutsideforthe timebeing (Underhill2002).after dollar. dollaritself. debt. against mark.thissealed the fateof Europe's experiment currencies What managing 1996. Rather. dollar diplomacyof both species had largely peaked. the risein German interest ratesfollowing German reunifiin cation. by Americanpolicy After Second WorldWar. with global the of recession 1990Along thedecline thedollar of the and 1992. amongpotential political independence central toward banks. has longhad a strong In in etary policy LatinAmerica. the pursuit pricestability trade of and benefits. specifically and Germany" If the French (Chang2003. The Maastricht for unionthrew blueprint monetary commitment the EMS intoimto continuing political mediate doubt. rencies cross-border Second. notably problems somemember the defihave government Germany. In a sense. is likely and for to be a continuing currency problem theshared one ofitsroleas a transnational (Wachtel anydeepening twothings to create shared was a for currency theentire EU. is now the mostimrency. independent an bank devotedto keeping inflation undercontrol. in exclusive ofthedollar itsplace (Helleiner use 2003c).the thirdstage has seen the introduction the new currency.
Many Latin American countries allow dollardenominated depositsin domesticbanks.thisfitinto the ofthesecan be gained Of by having many advantages. Elsewhere. even endorsedecotheU. In Boliviaand Uruguayin the same year. But it also suggests occurred. played rolein making pricestability higher priority thanofficial thanformerly.Argentina employ 2003c. each country gniorage.the ratio of paper dollarsto threeor four as was local currency reported an incredible to one (Calvo and Vegh 1993). 2003). large-scale compared foreign construction thePanamaCanal. diplomacy the American Pricestability had currencies wereclosely that agendain LatinAmerica. of thispolicy crawling andbands(Jameson 1990. regimes. cost.Berget al. that suggest perhapsas much as 112-13) reports figures . Joshi et Woods. has to intervene financial Indeed. From than less is America now relatively dollarized (Helleiner officially 2003a). ization other Agreement many costs and if stalls imposing if U. the eliminationof exchange-raterisk has come to be American trade and inwidelyseen as likelyto foster vestment the region(Helleiner2003c.S. Cohen (2002) maintainsthat. But aftera flurry interest.number factors a choice. considerably French in dollarization. this regard. is likely an it that American governments will remain passivelyneutral one study estimates that the dollars in circulation amounted to $26 billion or around 11 percentof ArgentineGDP (Kamin and Ericsson1993). Forexample. geopolitical Official dollarconventional economic dollarization.-sponsored growth policiesin the late 1940s and 1950s. is clearly high in of FDI of growth export-oriented as themotor economic effects (Doyle 2000). Althoughthere are seidevelopment. politicallyeconomic in crises. cost. a result.in Argentina 1992. Bank depositsin different currencies easier to trackthan physicalflowsof are cash. financial have investors American and official unofficial) not or full investors mines in and dollarizations (either did From1991 until 2002. 2003). peggedto the dollar such mechanisms as economic as thecentral so-called intermediate or adopted ofAmerreplaced growth goal more ican policy the toward region. in As development place ofimport-substitution. to In a wouldaspire classic of sovereignty. the fixed rates after collapse Bretton the of Bernhard al.419).S. were difficult document to much more Two crucial: extremely Although the especially in and substantial amount inflation inthecountries theregion the rates of this and dollarization. throughout In 1999. (Maxfield Nolt This illustrates muchAmerican in recent to fully dollarize their how 1990). the bestmonetary about official be and should an independent with one transaction conversion prestige. official behindhigh facturing aggressive have tariff wallsto servelocal markets and Ecuador El Salvador America and In Latin itself. (Helleiner agriculture a that boardto maintain fixed were like territories seenbylocalsand strongly thestate something a currency Americans alikeas very the muchthebasicbuilding ratebetween peso and the US$ but the blocks exchange to for economic all discretion In considerable American of charter theboardallowed policies. as a toolto undermine partly currency LatinAmerica. words. In other exchange and But economic conditions LatinAmerica in the is between globalist theimpealso made continent stuck ifgiven the changeseem moreimperative than it otherwise rialist eventhough many governments. have appeared. of enthusiasmseems to have faded.from Americanperspective. Americangovernments Onlyifthe nomicnationalist policiessuch as import-substitutionEuro came to challengethe statusof the dollaras in substitute industrialization.S. discretion the local of 1997. might a is matter dollarization a different a Unofficial entirely. left-wing the preeminent and wantto have. also becauselargeAmerican becomemore but Cohenthink thatAmerican manumight policy firms wantedto buildfactories in pushing dollarization.World inContemporary Politics andState Sovereignty Regimes: Territoriality Authority 455 national economic so dollarization. policy LatinAmerica thetime at and of as influence policyinterests the relative foreign dependency the timeof the origins an American American manufacturers of to however. 2002. Cohen (1998. governments in dollar it was in the late 1980s whenmanyof its countries to returned Beginning the 1970s. and elsewhere often that seen as a truecase ofofficial Manyother policies Africa pucurshed forcurrency in blocs (suchas the FrancCFA zone LatinAmerican countries factnow floattheir in former French in colonies WestAfrica) currency renciesagainstthe dollarand othercurrencies or (IMF Latin boardsto limitthe monetary thispointofview. policy its own currency. course. wisdom the timesas maniof and unofficial surreptitious in the fested theBretton of Woods and has the majordrawbacks exposing U. policy be in LatinAmerica Thiscannot differed from authorities British themonetary and (Hanke2003).does to LatinAmericans thecurrency side really groups co-optnationalists theAmerican in the Cold War. generally Adoption pegs was obviously of the ideological fixedversusfloating in shift on trends adopting toward neoexchange part see liberalism followed freeing currencies that the of from ratesacrossdevelopedand developing countries. years legislation monetary enacted in dollarized from its at Panamahas been largely reflected American economies.S. particular. Senate. a bill devoted to the spread of official dollarization throughout Latin America was actually introduced in the U. 421).
lowedforeign bankdeposits and et al. significant against of on of nature terand universal In countries. international. in intothe economic fiber the region of a differencesthe rather thanthe alsoprovides wayofgauging typology outcomeof a formal and of over of adoption the dollaras a remeaning sovereignty time spaceand thereby somesort for currencies nevertheless debate overwhether is a the moves placement territorial beyond sterile When asis strike thepossibility realmonetary of universal of "statesovereignty" eroding. typology thevirtue intheregion's in whichglobalization andcapital. effective lies to El Norte work locatesovereigntyplace. the morethanit reveals. beunder global Lying contemporary political-economic processes hind much of the unrealized and subof shared. percent powers nowexert. an enmodel dollar business Thisalternative remittances migrants spatiality absolute from as tirely through territoriality.Hannah 2000 for . states. The that from are to to critiques They proach sovereignty draws to the of one the orthodoxy's authority. bothas a the classic. 2000. imperialist. The unofficial theresult diffusion thedollar or of or of mainly integrative.5percent alldeposits US$ in of of of in orthodox conception sovereignty fully applythe and Boliviato a low of4. 2003).e. or to the U.9 in Mexicowitha meanof49. partial and acrossall countries LatinAmerica in thatalthatlocal." combiimportant Central and stateauthority conof of America)to the salting awayof dollarsas a defense nations degrees central and I inflation to aid in the acquisition dollar of solidatedor open territoriality. of theconditional limited. as dollar thebestguarantee future of wealth. however. Westphalian. globalist. of of source investment as thedestination many and This has of for and grative. dolof we beginto see. ways exports.More recently. conditions-territorial. Sack (1983. sovereignty regime. concept is actually descriptiveof the contemporary Notes of in situation thefield of 1.56) oncenoted. the same year in Argentina. efoperates including adequatemonetary material also leads theirown elitesto look to the fourdistinctive I have identified currency regulation.regional. exceptin terms territoriality e.have empirically against to assetsabroad (i.. Thisis theopposite thehistorical as as where. obfuswas We In cationis particularly figure 41. globalist. cannotmeaningto a went from high 92.2 exercise relative. political (almost currency entirely analysis.The factthat and on the impacts globalization state territoriality of by in in and various states. completely respectively. space. under the influenceof a certain reading of particularly Foucault and the strangerevival of interestin the Nazi of it Schmitt. today. communities actors nonterritorial currency (Berg All this addsup to a major an to unofficial spontaneous) I have proposed alternative the orthodox ap(or of recent dollarization. It various commodity migrants. sovereignty Latin of American statesis the factthatLatinAmerica now is stitute-thatmaybe mappedonto the fourtypes inteoriented almost toward U.5 percent. of the understandingpolitical of Andeancountries' maineconomic of is whichI have added a critique its understanding activities.S. national. many ways which monetary particularlyCentral AndeanAmerexamining tax as to eventhe the ica. geography a whole territorialhas ignored analysis largely spatial "conventional exceptionssuch as Gottmann ity. transnational.S. is as ifpowercannot be thought philosopher an of (see.. (thisis particularly in relieson the idea of "sovereignty regimes. is a "truth" has always this In In one surmises). fectively. reasons notdifficult find. rangefrom factthatdrugtrafficking. aboutthefixed sovereignty thepart LatinAmerican sumptions in thisregard.failto raiseenough revenue payfor obviously symbolic wellas important perhaps most barest modern of of manifestationstatesovereignty. sovereignty.g. to and is no sovereignty ritoriality longer is exercised thatthere and network better for flows U."Fleeting. imperialist.if important.therange comparable problematic. distinguishing is LatinAmerica's different on to produce econtersects stateterritoriality with very dependence theAmerican in thathas produced substitutionthedollar the or of for of modes actually omy sovereigntythe existing effective territorial currencies thatis singularly the Thatthis is We do notlivein a world world throughout region.S. through privatized of larsrather thanthrough construction stateadoption the the of beyond sovereign explicit authority political dollar a territorial as territorial currency. thisstandard conception a poorguideto in 1992were foreign of that hidden It dollars. Conclusion The conceptionofsovereignty has predominated that in modernpoliticaltheory relieson the idea ofexclusive exercisedby a state over a given terpoliticalauthority This idea reflects concept of sovereignty the that ritory. (1973) onlyhelp to provethe rule.9 percent all deposits domestic in in banks Bolivia But world.456 Agnew of is 80. from and thendevelopedalongwith emerged Westphalia and Enlightenment Romanticideals of popularrule and continueto act as if the Many governments patriotism. capitalflight offshore of to the illustrated efficacy thisapproach disentangling banking in centers theCaribbean to Miami). a globalizing world. for worse.
Studies ofCommon entre ruses Les sans Badie.e. Whygiving control (e.. most central stateauthorityparalleled an increasingly is comby of flows Several replexspatiality currency and regulation. of P Yaeger.. A. geographies power. in 7.Dybrowski up to should seenthis perhaps be reflects rency themarkets way the classicaland neoclassical that sensibility a currency should either "stand and deliver" go to thewall. territory. freely currencies themostintegrated are 29). New and economy.g. currency) mostlikely all in mostcases underpresent of conditions.S. Press.S." regime. Barnett. ed. -.. snowball effect surrounding of countries with operating other makethese"intermediate" systems. regime Berg.thirty-nine countries no independent had curon such (i. and Political . Notes A. 2004.AnnArbor: UniversityMichigan of H. Cambridge. A. 1992. of sumptions international national Political 1:53-80. M. is exchange floating sometypes managed notnecessary. Joshi (Bubulaand Otker-Robe countries words.. is Foucault take-off for much richer ofthe point a understanding comof and plexspatialities power authority. Agnew. ries.The Maastricht tomonetary Journal Market 33:299-309. on Beddoes. road Artis. crossings. 1958.holders therenminbi the of for suchas trade travel or but right conversion purposes loansor suchas making not forcapitalaccount purposes assets. References bare Sacer: G.: Bartelson. 40-58. Emily U. Sovereign andthe life. forthcoming). 6. 2002. and of this rates.It ceror seems havelittle nothing do with reality to or to the of tainly central stateauthority indicated different as by exchangeratemechanisms. Stanford University astrap: J. As of2001. . condition. Recently Canadaa public in discussion erupted the has over of as to merits dollarizing one wayofresponding theimporestrictive border of controls between U.Making political geography. thecontemporary it is successful In world 457 as mechanism fixed to that rates. 5.IMF 2000. 1998.2002. towards floating free 2002. Geog23:503-28. Arendt. adopt(e. Bobbitt (2002). London: 2002.K. 2003. tween Articularadical C.B. 1994. being-with-others. it whocan provide besttheoretical the strates. of J. of 11 September Gilbert (2005) has exthe in issue this of journal. forexample. 2003. tember: 24-27.Flying oneengine.The shifting ofpolitics: medieval J.A genealogysovereignty. A good textbook of and survey currencies exchange-rate is regimes provided SachsandLarrain by (1993). Economy statebounda1999. Millennium 28:499-521.Thegeography Press. U. Economist. E. Hochreiter al. Chicago union. Fayard. the sition more and Canadain theaftermaththeterrorist of attacks the in 2001. CA: Stanford.Deconstructing democracy: Political and tion. P Mauro. in of have ently operative China.S. 1996.Politics in World and Sovereignty Regimes: Territoriality StateAuthority Contemporary of and a of 2004for critique the example theformer Barnett eventhough. Oxford. New Anderson. exchange-rate regimes with unstable financial and inherently globalization will push themtoward shared currencies withcentral (as European countries to admission theEuro after the awaiting joining EU in2004).Thehuman University Chicago: Press. See. arguments. case monetary sovereignty. 2003.for example..Mastering Hegemspace: J. Corbridge. countries no independent of The with use ones. Etats without Statesbeet responsabiliteworld [A sovereignty: and Paris: tricks responsibility]. 2003). power Agamben.K. as prevails fully with useofallfunds. thirty-one managed and et floats.) could claim that theyhave the main features As the "classic" show. someofthemacroeconomics literature moneis witha free tary sovereigntyassociated currency floating overa cur2002). floats. anypurpose.. without territoriality: Appadurai.Sovereignty In a ed. fifty-one currency exchange seventeen exchange had ratesadjusted indicators rates.S. Arnold. for postnational of identity. A fully convertible by currencyconvertible anyholder Under current account as presconvertibility.I later israther more than In casestheretreat of complex this. representation. Transnational democracy: spaces -London: border Routledge. raphy U. 1995. The freely floating intotheglobal with economy themost independently powerful financial centers the where US$ serves thecommon as metric transactions. This "regime sovereignty"addressed moral in of is in not terms on political-economic byGrovogui's (2002) essay Africa's relations Europe. etary 8. 2. York: ony. Absence capital of account convertibuying foreign that authorities monitor the monetary bility requires national full under convertibility. M. stage territorialities? and postmodern and Space 14: Society 133-53.Lost of J.Mapping beyond political power -. Allen. In other onlythirty-one (plusthe of U. 1996. floats currency obviously substitute The managed in thosestates which statemonetary signify (and authority otherelements authority) relatively of is territorial. 3. centstudies show that widerange state a of economic policy decisions fundamentally are constrained thetype exof by mechanism monetary and thatstates change-rate targets et 2002. Borensztein.relied rency totally a foreign currency as the had boardsor pegged US$). Strangely.:Blackwell. international political Routledge. with a 4. Agnew. The countries currency with boards and pegged ratesare often in either macroeconomic orin transition crisis toward some "Network the otherexchange-rate externalities.The territorial The geographical Review Interof relations theory. 1995. by or had (inflation exchange-rate targets). provides different periodizationbasedon theoutcomes warsrather of thananyother criteria as economic such downturns thecomplex poor of litical-economic discursive and factors that underpinning of and Agnew Corbridge (1995). and Finance Development for Sepoptions LatinAmerica.Homo Press.substitute currencies independent (no or. Allen (2003) persuasively as demonlatter). U. Thisconflationnotunusual eventhemost is in sophisticated of theoretical Elden (2005. Survey theworld 20-26 September. geography. 1999. and S.g.Monetary and A.Un monde souverainete. explored discussion a recent pertly is for 9. theclosest managed a of stateauthority themonin degree central signifyhigh realm.Joshi 2003). forty-seven floated (Hochreiter al. Dgbrowski 2002. Cambridge University of Z. economy.
G. NY: Cohen. H. rvard University and W. and the window: Domestic Gowa. J. Rosales.J.. A. International Organization 2002. Press.D. sovereignty.K. 53:39-70. and MD: Lexington Books. N.2002. C. and 1999.Theshield Achilles: peace. ation American of Geographers econand theglobal Gill. and J. Elden. Press.Forthcoming. knowledge: Harvester Press. K.Chinatakes Foreign Affairs 82:36-53. lective International 49:595-625. and affairs.: Blackwell. L.Greenback: almighty andthe J. University Press. Michel and Selected interviews other 1972-1977. Broz. Thrift.Writing security: foreign policy and the of politics identity. NY: M. Oc65-66. myths R. Brighton: in 1991. Europe. 7:63-84. Henry of Charlottesville: Gottmann.G. Cambridge. high eds. InstituteBritish Geographers. Dyson.S. 1994.Falk.J. Eldis.S.Closing gold politics the J. New tion America. capital: history the of interEichengreen. . the War.: America. 1996. Conclusions: In states theEuro:Euroand nomic governance. of New ofhistory.. 2003. territory.Govemrnmentality of masteryterritory innineteenth-century Cambridge. andJ. Challenges the United Nations 169-99. University bridge to straw man:A response Hanke.Currency inflation countries. T. and EuroecoK.Globalization thechanging ofcollogic action.1998. C. Cornell University of International S. Otker-Robe.Exercising authority beyond state: J. J. 3-30. Grovogui. Tilting dragons: 2003. espaces Paris: Dalloz..dollars.Spaces globalization. the Delbruck. 2002. Missing point: Transactions andthe deterritorialization spaceoftheworld. International Organization 53:71-97. Journal Cato board 23:47-57. A. Organization M. 25 of economic too many therichworld's problems. R.Biersteker.2002. 218-35. In Monetary orders: economics. University. Leblang. Dallmyr. Cutler. D. in deficits global An in econperspective: essay geopolitical and omy. D. 2005. invenThe dollar Goodwin. V. of Minneapolis: University MinnesotaPress. Gilbert. 239-59. Lanham. [The systemes world: Spacesand systems]. 1983.. S. "Here. Monerisk. convergence. U.B. V.London: relations. Power/ Foucault. Y. writings. T. and variation.Lemonde.Theendofsovereignty? The Camilleri.NY: CornellUniversity Press.ed. Cornell ofmoney. 1995. socialconstruct. 1973. Press. U. System: national incentives the domestic and free-rider problem. International Paper et and 1992. The inevitability integration? and for discourse the proposals a new NorthAmerican 11.K. tober: A B.L. Cambridge U. Weber. 1996.K.: politics a shrinking fragmenting Aldershot. Press. United States Campbell. states European Dyson. and I.J. since1990: Evidence from facto de changerateregimes IMF Working WP/02/155. of Economy of Reserve InterBroz. European ed. FederalReserve Number Finance Discussion 657. 2002. G. W. 2003. substitution in Calvo. N. demandand worldwide currency currency Boardof Governors. 1999. P and Cerny. 2002..Franco-German The for and tary integration: search autonomy acceptance. andJ.K. 2003. elitesand theemerging world omy:Globalizing ed. University blamed for at Chinais being Economist. M. Press. US policy dollarization:political analysis.Handbook T. Doyle.. Private In and authority international ed. Sovereignty citizenship. of ideas:TransBlyth. Chicago: ofChicago Press.Oxford. J. 1998. andexchange-rate commitments. and world. andthe Hannah. interests European in moneChang. M. and Journal Inof morality theAfrican European temational Relations 8:315-38. P and real markets. eds.Tokyo: Sakamoto. Davidson. Woods. International economy monetary Organization 56:693-723.The roadto the twenty-first In of and miracles Asian manufacturing.Private Cutler. ed.The Argentine critics.458 Agnew The century: Daly. Regimes sovereignty: condition. U. glocalstates: and mation stateterritorial in contemporary restructuring Review International Political 5:1-37. Economic of AssociSpace after September Annals the 95:202-22. of Croxton. University of Neoliberal E. tary Ambiguous ubiquitous politics. Kirshner.1993. 2000. endofBretton NY: Ithaca. Corbridge. Globalcity forBrenner..A.Financial money the world. and distributionglobal orders: ed. DC: Washington.Globalcities..: Oxford 335-66.K. 2002. and ed. Hale. 2002. Papers. 1999.. Corbridge. effect: --. and D.R. Finance Development and 30:34-37. A. 2002. Hauffler. of Elgar. The evolution exof Bubula. Elgar.: Cambridge Cambridge. Levy. Press University ofVirginia. off. eds.The US trade budget and S. Ambiguous ubiquitous politics. Porter. 2005. Beyond nationalism? E. New Guilford Cox. and power space. J. ofinternational Sage. room national for Debrowski. Cornell Press. Hall. substitution. M. B.Structural political change In order. eds. 1994. 1999. University P and course Bobbitt.M.K. Porter.Origins theFederal J. peanization. 1992. andL.Is there monetary policy in theeraofglobalization? 26 August. parency.. 165-88. Journal Global of Legal strategies? dollars "-Estimating . J.Empire. 2003. D.M. ofthe of in Foucault: M. University on A . 2003.: Edward Cheltenham. Two lectures.. Camauthority governance. Ithaca. Agnew.State. Retaill6. authority and international affairs. A.Money. T. H. policies.Theemergence ofpriinglobal vate U. M-E. ed. York: of Press. and A. York: Holt. Hardt. 208-26. SUNY Press. Clark. In Biersteker. Press. The Foucault Studies governmentality.Ithaca.The political of institutions. History International 569-91. 2000.Thegeography Ithaca. U. Globalization. W. 2003. University MA: 2000. Hale.B. W Carlsnaes.: Cambridge. currency M. Society Space9:71-90. Martin.Thesignificance ofterritory. as Biersteker. N. R. economics. Princeton NJ: monetary system.Globalizing Univernational Princeton. Durand. to state Globaltransformation: system. Bernhard.andT.The political power financial in In finance. and C. U. HaPress. sity the S. 1980. Albany. NY: Kirshner.State sovereignty T.A.and C. 2002.Hauffler. 2001. J. Geopolitics 1991. J. public alternative Transnational and/or legitimation democracy Studies Indiana 10:29-44.K. Democratic institutions Bernhard. Vegh.. 1998.. 1992. Negri. York: Knopf.The Peace ofWestphalia 1648 and the of Review 21: origins sovereignty.K.Oxford.
York: political and and 2002.Sovereignty: Monetary hypocrisy. Polity. of future 1995. Rosow. 1651/1968.The autonomous power thestate: origins. and N. Inayatullah.Authority: Chicago: Monetary in rate of Press.Chinaflags easing capital J. Conference reon relations. International Fund. B. crime..States markets theproduction world T. Construction corrosion. exchange globalization. N. 1997. Dollarization US Press. International Finance Discussion ernors 460. and B.2003. J.. Lake.Theking's bodies: study meWhy ---. Press. A. local 1998. In in economy. 31 3.I. Workshop. American Monetary European prospects. M. G. Studies A. DC: London: Developments issues. Problematic OxHobbes. and 29-48. ed. The outlaw A world freedom. 1999. andD. to U. Lynne CO: Rienner. Studies From advocacy . celerating Rethinking world? theory.: Blackwell. Rupert. 2003.CT: YaleUniversity and G. University politics postwar monetary policy orders: economics S. E World union: Latin of An inquiry theformation the statesystem. connection.K. 53:379-408. Press. New Haven. 'legitimacy' 'political of responsibility'? Point Press. Bretton 13-14May. andM. geopolitics age. Woods. Monetary Lind.K.The strange ofHobbesian T. W 1996. andG. ism. and and toleration.Reshaping regulatory Times. Washington. perspective. Cambridge. concerning government a letter Press. Woods. Madrid. Financial Bor17 Hudson. 1998. Luke. of Smith the U. B.Major. Ithaca. Princeton. Political Times November: 9 of Economy in rela5:534-64. 15:491-507. E.. Hurd. Dunning. University University possibilities. Globalization. globalization..Themonetary two A in dimensionscolonialism: did of E. fast Jacobson. 2004. Held. 72-94. S. territoriality: Kratochwil. A.Themaking national Territorial Press. . guide world-spaces. 2003b. ed. Gespaceandthenation-state North Washington. Winckler. ed. NJ: authority transition. A. ed. . boundaries. borders.1997.Repre. Papers Number find H. The globalpolitical geopolitics: In world order. International sovereignty the economy.Hobbes.State S. blocdependency Latin in America: Mann. MacPherson. University University NJ:Princeton T Contested and rules ed. Jacobson. 1957.Governancethe M. O Tuathail. N. 2004. Helleiner. in and of Luke. K. 'America' an acIn and culture.: Ashgate. 1998. M. In of In The as Locke.Oxford. Hochreiter. Review International 21:3-20.K. Financial Times October: rules. Historicizing Board Govof Reserve in DC: America. colonialLatinAmerica full the Review International Keene. Identities. warns ministers deficit EU case man. U. The transformation of political community. society: coming circle? of Political U. ciesin historical State of Ithaca S.The architectureglobalization: sovPress. Political America. Ambiguous Organized ubiquitous politics. Krasner.. 34:519-41.eds.Oxford. sentations 63:1-12. In ernance the in global Aldershot.A. Theglobal economy political ed. Corbridge. Martin.International Studies of exchangerate policy. 100-209. L&vy.E. International Review networks: tions. 6. Cambridge Economy politics. international G.A user's ed..: in and 10:406-29. P 1990. sovereignty.K. O Tuathail. 1984. political 2003a. 1:331-52. order world Cambridge. C. C. diplomacy: policytowards ---. Herod.-. Lincoln. 1999. Princeton. R.Lapid. sovereignty: . 1986. Roberts.London: Routledge. 2001. NY: Cornell University Kobrin. and M. Money. D. 1690/2003.J.Of systems. create blocs? dieval 7:5-30. Polity in and reemergence Political E.Boulder. currenof University money: ---. October: landscape: controls. ed. into lessons. fundamentalisms. Press. Monetary Kamin. Schmidt-Hebbel. Linklater. Shapiro. R. Press. Kantorowicz. 61-85. Geography U. ed. 2003. 2004. 2001. 2002.May. The newsovereigntyinternational 5:303-23. D. Y.Exchange regimesan increasingly UniversityChicago integrated world and DC: divisible Washington. 167. S. 1994. financial Review International centres. International Quarterly Organization 47:533-59. of its K. in D.Realizing 6 N. York: The and in or D. 2003. and and 161-79.. . Ericsson. secondtreatise.From J. Santiago.Global flowmations. E. I. rate A and to global 67-84. ed. Inayatullah. 2004.Beyond anarchical Grotius. J. UniversityMinnesota over N. Governments. S. University inventing in global covenant. Rupert. L. 2001. New Columbia ford. Leviathan. Inayatullah. Cornell NY: Kirshner.Howto helptherenminbi itsownlevel. E. 2001. An unruly orders: relations ed.D. Jameson.NGOs' transnational to sea: W GlobalNetworks Langewiesche.H. Reconfigured sovereignty: Multi-layered govT. Twotreatises of problem mixed ontologies..in Contemporary Politics World andState Sovereignty Regimes: Territoriality Authority 459 rates capand in Hashmi. Blaney. Albert.Financial V. IME 1997.States the Princeton. 2003. sovereignty: andpersistence Change Joshi. 1994.Legitimacy authority international economy Leblang. Princeton University imperial NJ: powers currency Geopolitics theology.K. Financial derskirmishes around Bahamas Cayman of the and offshore Kynge. T.M. the 15. Chile: Central Bankof Chile Working Politics 34:27-52. W. 2003.Governmentalitycontragovernmentality: Ingham. 2000. J. Princeton NY: Ithaca.: and 1994. Lake. ital controls developing State international University Press.K. Park:Pennsylvania in countries.Dollar and mechanisms results.To devalue defend? political politics. North and New chaos. power space. 2003.D.CT: Yale LegalTheory world order. of Press. Political War. 1994. International Studies European of BeyondBretton Journal Sociology.DollarizationLatin territorial currencies: S. U.Exchange arrangementscurrency politics: French convertibility: and Frank Cass. Ilgen. Duisenberg Jacobson. global ereignty a networked side and liberalism: The . sovereignty.Global Kahler. 2003c. H. Popular Fund. Press. Cambridge.: Oxford Press. J. space.: Oxford World. Quarterly 25:185-213. 146-71.K. ography Paper 2002. 1999. 1998. and D. Kuroda. N. 55-77. ed. Thrift.: Press. Minneapolis: governance geography. of in theThird In U. international Press. economy: ofglobal finance. after and and In and Rethinking sovereignty territoriality the Cold money: Sterling thedollar. Cornell University University in 1993.The southern ofembedded business. Federal 18:309-39.Levy. NewHaven.
prospects. Activity: The sovereignty Account. University Simmons. and ofstate Palen. D. the Virginia of Journal International 40:1103-15. D. In Reordering world: University onthe century. 81-120. Money.Lapid. ed 28 June 2004). d'Aigues: accountability government public 39:159-90. andJ. CO: Press. accessAssociationAmerican 73:55-74. diplomacy. U.The concept thestate: Washington. Scott. 1999. Sidaway. 1999. 1985. 1997.K.. U. 1993.S. S. Offner. and NY: borders. Tour IAube.K. 2000. andOpposition The citizenship: cultural oftransnaOng.Taxhavens thecommercialization Princeton. state: Oxford.S. Cavarero. 2004.Sovereignty Cliffs.Thesovereign andits R. Corbridge.Regions the economy. Skinner. 69-88.. University expansion. borders. the and and C: Government Policy 18:487-502.Boundaries. Mason. States citizens: Melzer. Princeton University NJ: change.A. J. Neocleous. Brookings In S. 1982. sovereignty.S. relations ed.S. U.State Portraying postcolonial J. 1999. 1985. Runciman. Cambridge.Boundaries socialprocesses: Berkeley: complex thorityearly polities. 1994.AnnArbor: B. Strath. University Cambridge of world U. Constellations A. II: The rise Bulletin Federal Reserve and is How U. of 7.The secret monies. military changing of artificial on lines. networks. 1990.Boulder.K. Y. Issues difference. 1996.: Cambridge S.htm (last of Geographers and CamItstheory history. Stately philosophy. Norberg. and sovereignty sovereigntyscapes.: Cambridge B. 2001. History.: A. Martin. ofclasses nation-states. International J. territory. Political J-M. international Journal Political of Philosophy Rethinking theory. the to and ofa fiction. rope May:A3. of Southdivide: development power. Martin.. Thrift. G. Four C. dollar and transactions. Macroeconomics global Sachs. UniversityMinnesota and eds. Murphy. tory and The tothe Studies missionaries world: politics 34:49-81. D. Corbridge. Weber. andthe 209-24. Smith. Ruggie. Beijing fails dentsteelindustry's to 1900-1930. E. perspectives 21st opolitical 1-11. 2002. of In andpostmodemity. http://www. A.2000. 2003. MIT Press.Off map:On violence cartography. Westview by of questiongender.S. Martin.2004. currency: much abroad? Press.From royal the theory.. state as of Press.1998. and Press. Jacobson. London: Frank Cass. and K. J.. The sources socialpower.1993. cating raphy offshore 91-115. . globalSlaughter. Current Organization.Cambridge. Geography Inof affairs. DukeUniversity tionality. ternational Organization knowlEmbedded overshadows.Biersteker C. Wood. GeOxford challenges thestatus quo. Q.and E Larrain. 2003.. and D.Thepolitical ofaulandscape: Westphalian Organization International of in as in UniversityCalPaasi. Pumain.Intro. 2003. of DC: Institution.: 82/ 1760-1914. of ysis systems Press. A theory. D.Political European of theology: chapters the MA: Relations 10:475-84. 1994. and 31:808-34. U. global integration Priest. of in constellation of and national economic The autonomy: endofgeography? Long terrogation: history tactics global EuWall is to In Money. barriers: Newman. D. Cambridge.Foundations US international His1900-1905. acrossthe NorthM. Law international and ization. 137-51. eds. U. Albert. Prentice NJ: Englewood eclipsed? legitimacyhumaneconomy.: Blackwell. 1999. Ithaca.. geographic orders: 7:1-29. B. R. 54:573-602. Journal Social of privatized European of Theory Singer. A-M.K. 12 253-78.J. global of of Geogra26:407-29. fictitious M. W. ed. inR.Sovereign as socialconstruct. Porter. 55:251-87. Niisstr6m. 2001. andJ. and R. S. Organization International .Oxford. Unicentury University eighteenth Berkeley Los Angeles: Cambridge in the of Press. 16:631-53. in U.Flexible logics emrnment NC: Press. International SymposiumtheU.Sovereignty.Stephens. Newman. current Brookings change: on Panel Economic on der. 1994. Nolt. phers financial of and E.and W.460 Agnew of 1996. Vol. 2003. 2004. ifornia theworld flows. A.International andthesovereign to the Press. Shemek. Osiander. W. 10:883-903.Questioning question legitimacy of) (the University Mulligan. order. and R. Thrift.Fictitious spaces:thegeogcapital. and Review 59:169-202.K. J. rapid of Financial Press. Press.Disaggregated sovereignty: Significations [Territories networks: Intersecting Slaughter. Political 22:157-78. Annals the access and intervention. territoriality Press.Territoires et reseaux.Transnational Roberts. Planning The warriors: rise the 6:409-25. An state H. 2000. 2001.Human territoriality: -Press. R. 2002. Theory edgenetworks thenewglobal M.: Blackwell.Protectionism theinRosenberg.H. centers coming light. MA: R. Environment and finance. Business ternationalizationcapital:U. 1986.. itarian Journal Humanitarian Sack. Geopolitical imaginations and of Press. The of Mills.A. sponsorship import of Goldstandard of diplomacy. Political Sinclair. Turkey. sovereignty. D.Cambridge.jha. 1994.Corporate P. What globalization authority: T. Burke-White.. law and world A. myth. 2003. Judicial Durham. versity California Hall. Times October: 30 Harvard 14. power: inthe substitution industrialization Philippines.The legalization monetary Press. 2003. 36:379-415. and R.: 28-38.In Identities. Geography the Towards croisees and A-M. andN. A. 1998. financial of power space. competitors:analSpruyt. . 2001. Cambridge. financial 2004. 2000. the in and and ed. culture dollar McGregor.Humanterritoriality: of of Assistance.K. 1996. obligations: and In newspacesofaccountabilitya post-Westphalian in flows. D. to bodies: ed.The sovereign system political-territorial University Michigan ideal:historical contemporary and In excesses? considerations. D. Govofglobal meanings]. Judson. N.Financial Argentina. International Quarterly -. Demko and Literature. Maxfield. relations. Boundaries. environmental LoS. Cornell University industry. on concept to IR: A reply Jens Steffek. G. T.ac/articles/a019. ed. Embedded tainability the U. of Journal International Schmitt. D. power space. S.Oxford. 1983. Reinventing S. T. Skinner B.The international standard susregimes.Hobbes thepurely and person the perspectives territorial Q.J. McKinnon. The location U. body: republican Incorporating political seventeenth France. bridge. and TransactionstheInstitute British ed. Street detention Journal ed.Stateless D.K. 56:151-76. K.R.Minneapolis: Slater. A. state. oreconomic of in liberalism thepostwar accountdeficit.
and ed. R. the of Teschke. 1992.W. K. R. U.K. S. Intervention.: Blackwell.N.The socialconstructionthe"imposThe bases sibletrinity": intersubjective ofmonetary coopStudies eration. and monEMU.Oxford.K. International Quarterly curmarket needsa global M. Oxford.Globalintegration. Financial 4 Times. W.China's crisis. politics. geog. S.Cambridge. B. Thrift. Martin. of geopolitics the relations.From In Money.K. 2002. 31-52. Zacher. and power space.US risks high paying price callsovercurTimes September: Financial 26 6. N. 2004.Social of politics. G. 2003. rency flexibility.Kirshner. 2003.K. Corbridge. August: rency. On the socialand cultural international financial centers: The case of the Cityof London. litical University Cambridge. 327-55. . A.The decaying pillars theWestphalian for order temple: Implications international and governwithout Order ance. International Walker. 2002. inworld politics.edu.: Oxford UniEuro. Law Stacy. relationspoas R. 48:433-53. October: Diplomatique. London: Verso. and U. Money. Cambridge theory. ubiquitous Press. European of Relations ternational 7:503-23. Past Finance Taylor. to Bretton S. N. 90095-1524.: Press. J. in of rate H. NY: Cornell University the state symC. economics. for Swann. determinants of Thrift. theoryinternational Cambridge. Dyson.K. Angeles. U. to EuRelations 8:5-48. Monetary In orders: theAsianfinancial Ambiguous ed.Inside/outside: U.K. 2003. Cambridge University e-mail: CA of Los Los of jagnew@ Correspondence: Department Geography. M. Strange. Globalfinance: and present. University California. of M. 2003. Press. versity Euro. Relational sovereignty. A.1993.ucla. 2004.: Cambridge University of W Widmaier. R. D. B. exchange policy theaftermath Wang. U. J. Rosenau E-O. andDevelopment March: 24-31. in Union:The political etary governance the European In of culture. international ofmodern The of Thaa. In and ed. 2003. Wolf. N. Press. 49-62. A global economy 11.World Politics in and Sovereignty Regimes: Territoriality StateAuthority Contemporary H.Themyth 1648:Class." European states and economy the"stability 461 the ed. power space.: Blackwell. J. Journal International ropean of and making .: bolic University Cambridge. W. C. Martin. 1995. Corbridge. Cambridge exchange. Not yetthe almighty 12. Wachtel. 153-71.Ithaca. Woods thecasinoeconomy. 1999.In Governance government: andchange 58and ed."Leancitizenship": fading away thepoin litical transnational Journal Indemocracy. 2004.Theorizing Westphalian system states: International relations from absolutism capitalism. Press.Le Monde H. U. Angeles. 2001. Stanford Review 55:2029-59. Oxford. U. 1994. sovereignty: Simulating Press.K. Underhill. 1994. M. and Weber. Thrift.: 101. Wendt. Czempiel.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.