All about meta theories

Week 12


Globalisation and IR theory





(Fairly rough notes)



Today we are continuing to focus on revision that will help you prepare for the upcoming exam. The key question of this session is what does contemporary globalisation actually mean for world politics and IR theory. Is globalisation moving us away from international politics to global politics or global relations? Does this mean that IR theory is being outmoded by globalisation?



Globalisation is clearly a highly contested concept both in academic and public circles in terms of meaning. While some claim that we are witnessing the shrinking of time and space, and the disappearance of borders, others claim that these processes are not particularly new or significant. Globalisation is clearly a highly contested concept both in terms of its significance and desirability. Globalisation is raising a range of ethical issues: global poverty, forms of violence, environmental degradation, the role of individuals in international bodies like the WTO, IMF and World Bank, etc. Indeed, globalisation is at the centre of really big questions in world politics. These include



1) Is globalisation (particularly of an economic kind) leading to the decreasing viability of war?

2) Is globalisation weakening the territorial state and eroding the principle of sovereign rule?

3) Is globalisation leading to more prosperous and just world or is it leading to inequality and insecurity?



The answers we give to these questions and the arguments we make are highly dependent upon the way globalisation is understood and defined. But I will also argue that IR theory still has some important things to say about these questions. Consequently, it is my goal today to: Introduce you to the debates regarding the definition of globalisation and the role of IR theory in these debates.





What is globalisation?



Globalisation is a messy term that encompasses a wide variety of human activity. As you may be aware there are trade statistics and other economic facts that suggest the world is becoming increasingly globally integrated. Globalisation is a concept that encompasses a variety of social processes and phenomenon. The real question is whether issues like global financial markets, global warming and TNCs are part of one global process. The definition and the significance of globalisation are inherently contested. Nevertheless, in an effort to systematise the examination of globalisation a variety of scholars have advanced arguments about what globalisation means. The book Global Transformations offers a systematic study of the history and nature of globalisation and suggests that there are three explanations of contemporary global integration



The first approach to what constitutes globalisation consists of conventional liberal formulations that reveal a rapidly changing world and its effect on business and government. This type of thought is often regarded as “hyperglobalisation” in that it proclaims that globalisation is not an incomplete process but a result clearly evident in a global age with global capitalism as the centrepiece. There is also a broad thesis of moral progress built into these arguments that rests on the notion of technology allowing companies and individuals to act upon a spontaneously formed ‘self’-regulating global market – globalisation is seen as good. As such globalisation is seen as an inevitable and monolithic economic development that produces significant homogeneity and interconnection.



Most strands of liberal IR theory tend to support this view or at least attempt to explain how interdependence creates the conditions for international cooperation. Neo-liberal Intuitionalists see the existence of institutions in their view can be explained in terms of their ability to reduce or exacerbate the costs of cooperation, rather than in terms of crude power relations. International economic organisations like the WTO are constructed in order to provide common rules for things like trade and investment in order to promote mutual gains. Some liberals are more conscious of the problems of globalisation than others.



The second set of observations offer a contrary perspective. The sceptical account of global transformation suggests that globalisation is not occurring because it is myth in at least two senses.



The first sceptical line of argument is that globalisation represents a manner of economic organisation that has not yet been reached because an international economy persists. This position argues (as Hirst and Thompson do in Globalisation in Question) that in some senses the level of global integration during the last decade of the twentieth century is less than the period of 1870-1914. Far from a world where markets have trumped states, the world economy is still shaped by state to state interaction.



Scholars sceptical of globalisation note there remain significant differences between the strategic choices made by states in response to the world economy. This is clearly a Realist position. As Kenneth Waltz notes states remain the most powerful actors in world politics. Furthermore, states have continued to adapt to increasing interdependence in global politics and that strong states are still “able to work the system to their advantage” (Waltz 1999: 7). Waltz uses the metaphor of a train when he claims that if globalisation exists it exists because the US is the “engine”. For neorealists, the only significant international institutions worth considering are traditional alliances between states. Other institutions are seen as products of state power: ‘The most powerful states in the system create and shape institutions so they can maintain their share of world power, or even increase it’ (Mearsheimer, 1994: 13). International economic organisation like the IMF and the WTO are seen as merely reflecting the material interests of the most powerful states.



The second sceptical position is the argument that capitalism has been global since the development of capitalism. This approach stems from Marxist arguments that emphasise the continuity of the capitalist mode of production and perceive globalisation to represent an exaggerated view of change. After all, Karl Marx indicated in 1872 that



The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.



More recently, Marxist thinkers continue to claim that capitalism has always been a global affair. They make the claim that the needs of the capitalist system direct markets to be expand globally and directs the US to act as an empire.



These observations miss some important elements of the social change that occurred form the 1970s onwards. Both sets of observation set capitalism in stone. Where these arguments run into trouble is that they fail to examine the history of decisions within and between nation-states as well as the ideas that shape economic life.



The third account of globalisation is the “transformationalist” perspective that seeks to locate globalisation in a more historical framework and has become the predominant explanation of globalisation. The transformationalist position conceives globalisation as being a spatial process whereby various forms of human activity are increasingly traversing the world and connecting people in differing parts of the world more densely and more quickly than in previous times. Anthony Giddens (1990: 64) exemplifies this account when he defines globalisation as “the intensification of world wide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa”. In this process national borders are transcended on a regular basis by various flows of resources, people and ideas. Giddens points to the ability of modern social forms to exist across time and space via abstract systems of rule, belief and exchange evident especially in empires, religion and trade.



Essentially we can see the history of globalisation as a spatial process firmly etched into the history of Australia. The incorporation of the Australian continent into the British Empire can be seen as a form of political and cultural globalisation in that colonialism involves global forms of political and economic structures of domination. Indeed, it is clearly the case that global connections have speeded up with the First Fleet taking 252 days to reach Australia, the first commercial airlines from the UK taking 9 days in the 1930s, and contemporary airlines from the UK taking 22 hours.



This spatial interconnectedness is largely due to developments in transportation and communications technology that enable long distance social relations. As such we can say that globalisation is a process of increasing interdependence which have operated on a global scale and cut across borders in various forms of economic, cultural and political activity. Globalisation is a spatial process. It is “the widening, deepening and speeding up of worldwide interconnectedness in all aspects of contemporary social life, from the cultural to the criminal, the financial to the spiritual”. (McGrew et al. 1999, p. 2)



The interesting thing about this perspective for our purposes is that it has no easy corresponding IR theory. The transformationalist position comes from sociology and geography in that it emphases the role of individuals, society and territory. Something to consider here is that while IR is a crucial discipline in understanding the world, other disciplines like sociology and geography are important as well.



The authors of Global Transformation develop the transformationalist argument further by examining various forms of global integration in a historical sense. In comparing the globalisation of various forms of activity, such as governance, organised violence, trade, finance and culture, across time, the account emphasises globalisation as a process. The incidence of globalisation varies according to the type of activity and the time period, but has been subject to “great shifts and reversals”. Thus the transformationalist account elaborated in Global Transformations argues that globalisation is a reality in a long-term sense that does not have determined direction.



Two aspects of the transformationalist position are important:



1) It is important to emphasise that this account contends that globalisation is multifaceted in that it is not restricted to the economic realm alone, as people are increasingly affected by various forms of economic, cultural and political activity.



2) Equally important, the transformationalist position argues that globalisation is not new to the late twentieth century as global connections have been interconnecting individuals and polities for at least 500 years with some dynamics of globalisation evident even earlier.



In summary: Globalisation is a spatial process whereby social relations are considerably transcontinental or transplanetary. Recent developments in globalisation theory that contend that globalisation is inherently a multifaceted spatial process that alters social geography in potentially significant ways. This spatial interconnectedness is enabled by developments in transportation and communications technology that enable long distance social relations to be a more important component of world politics. In recent decades these developments in technology have dramatically sped up the scale and speed of transplantary social processes. Contemporary globalisation is defined by a context where human activity is increasingly traversing the world and connecting people in differing parts of the world more densely and more quickly than in previous times.



This spatial process entails four dimensions of social change:



(1) Globalisation entails increased integration between states and individuals: we are practically interdependent but we are also more morally interdependent in that we are more aware of ethical issues in other part of the world.



* Practical interdependence stems from global connections and ramifications that are more authentically transnational and universal (what happens elsewhere has implications for us and vice versa). Indeed,



political communities and civilisations can no longer be characterized simply as ‘discrete worlds’: they are enmeshed and entrenched in complex structures of overlapping forces, relations and movements … . But even the most powerful among them -- including the most powerful nation-states -- do not remain unaffected by the changing conditions and processes of regional and global entrenchment. (Held et al, Global Transformations, pp. 77-80)



While these overlapping forces are often uneven and have greater local or regional implications for some people or states, these forces lead to the need for more complicated forms of global and regional cooperation.



This practical interdependence can exist at the level of culture and ideas. We have the global transmission of ideas - the faster transmission of fashions, trends and political ideologies (eg Marxist ideology earlier in the 1900s or environmentalism in the 1970s onwards) and increased Transnational awareness – global media networks (CNN effect), the internet and creation of political groups/ NGOs. Constructivists have paid particular attention to the ways NGOs have influenced the policies of the states. Constructivists like Martha Finnemore have argued that NGOs can act as ‘moral entrepreneurs’ in that they disseminate particular ideas and norms – like Human rights or sustainable development – to governments around the world through public pressure.



* Moral interdependence – leads to the formation of NGOs and global efforts to address global problems. Cosmopolitan claim that this leads to global consciousness and a developing loyalty and affinity for the human species rather than particular nations.



(2) Globalisation has a range of transnational impacts: In this process national borders are transcended on a regular basis by various flows of resources, people and ideas. This may mean:



* that forms of globalisation are influencing the domestic political processes of many states and thus affecting communities capacity for effective democracy and social justice.

* that the lines between foreign and domestic policy have blurred due to the intense and widespread forms of global integration and connection. This leads to issues such as terrorism, organised crime and environmental impact that intersect national borders and thereby can only be addressed by elaborate international cooperation.

* Globalisation entails forms of deterritorialisation: the rising significance of non-territorial spaces and social influences (eg internet communication, globalised finance, etc).



(3) While nation-states remain as important actors in world politics, global connections and the development of communications technology have empowered a new range of actors to operate in politically significant ways (Held et al 1999: Ch. 1). Clearly globalisation has made it easier to develop NGOs that promote a certain set of political values, but it has also made it easier for terrorists groups and organised crime to transfer people, resources and harm across national borders. Transnational corporations have also been greatly empowered - if not enabled - by these accelerated forms of global linkage.



(4) as a result of the previous points, there are increasingly complex forms of international and transnational cooperation that have become referred to as ‘global governance’. The previous points create the situation where the nation-state cannot be assumed to be the only major political actor in issues like security, economic prosperity, or environmental sustainability. It is now the case that international or intergovernmental forms of organisation such as the UN, regional bodies like the EU or non-public bodies like TNCs, business councils or NGOs are increasingly important to understanding the enactment of policy-making.



Neo-liberalism



The transformationalist position sees that globalisation is a spatial process with no centre of control. In my book Liberty Beyond Neo-liberalism I contend that the primary problem with the transformationalist account is that it does not explain why the type of globalisation we currently live within has resulted. There is often insufficient examination with the transformationalist account of the political forces or ideas (or indeed the powers) that have shaped the current type of globalisation. When people protest against globalisation they are not protesting against spatial processes but rather they are protesting against a particular political and economic model that is being institutionalised. In particular there is no examination of neo-liberalism – an ideology that has risen to prominence in the western world and beyond in the last 20 years or so.



I don’t think the transformationalist account is wrong – I think long-term processes of globalisation have been occurring. But I agree with scholars who argue that this picture is incomplete. The transformationalist thesis misses the importance of neo-liberal ideology in the construction and reproduction of contemporary social, economic and political life. I don’t think that the contemporary shape of globalisation is inevitable or natural.



An alternative to the transformationalist account is evident in the ‘critical’ approach to economic globalisation. Authors such as critical IR theorists like Robert Cox and Stephen Gill as well as sociologists like Sakia Sassen and Manuel Castells focus on the motivations of social groups and states as well as the dominant ideas that shape political infrastructure within and between states.



These authors claims that since the late 1970s there have been significant changes in the form of economic organisation on the part of firms, whole industries, and the rules of the global economy. Central to the ratcheting up of global integration since the 1970s has been the rise of neo-liberalism. So for these authors economic globalisation is the extension of free market capitalist relationships beyond national borders. Most notably there has been a shift from Bretton woods compromise where domestic stability and welfare was balanced with expanding trade to a context where economic growth is embraced wholehearted by tapping to the flows of global capitalism and placing a large measure of trust in liberalised and deregulated markets. Because this phase of integration is characterised by the neo-liberal extension of capitalist relationships beyond national constraints it is referred to as economic or neo-liberal globalisation.



While the transformationalist position sees globalisation is an alteration of social geography – this is not the only element of contemporary globalisation. However, there is little examination with the transformationalist account of the political forces or the ideas (or indeed the power) that have shaped the current type of globalisation. When people protest against globalisation they are not protesting against spatial processes but rather they are protesting against a particular political and economic model that is being institutionalised. In particular there is no examination of neo-liberalism – an ideology that has risen to prominence in the western world and beyond in the last 20 years or so.



Neo-liberalism (also known as economic rationalism) is a strand of liberal thought that has been dominant in by many western -- especially Anglo-Saxon countries -- and the International Financial Institutions (IFIs). Neo-liberalism is an ideology and philosophy based on the principle that human welfare is best promoted by economic growth, which in turn is best enabled by reducing the interference of governments in the private sector. Neo-liberals also support measures that enable trade and finance to have unrestricted movement across national borders. These policies attempt to ‘roll back’ the state and the role of government, and leave decisions about allocation, production and distribution in the economy to the global market thereby excluding or limiting measures that restrict or redistribute the wealth of individuals. These policies have been influential around the world and have replaced the more moderate Keynesian liberalism that sought economic growth and social stability by allowing an active domestic role for the state.



These ‘market friendly’ policies are evident in the policies of deregulation that remove ‘political’ interferences and rules from the operation of markets, privatisation which entails the sale of state assets to the private sector or the ‘contracting out’ of public services to the private sector, and the liberalisation of restrictions on the movements of capital or trade across state borders. In this circumstance the role of the state has changed considerably to being a facilitator of capitalism. This is evident that around the world from Australia, to Europe, to Africa and China the state is these situations are trying to make the most of global capitalism.



Critical IR theory – especially Gramscian thinking – has been at the forefront of this perspective that neo-liberal ideas have dominated policy discourse. Robert Cox and Stephen Gill have been at the centre of the claim that neo-liberalism has become hegemonic at a ideological and cultural level and is therefore crucial to the contemporary structure of world politics. In making this claim that ideas matter they are making a descriptive and normative evaluation which focuses on the consequences of contemporary global integration. Gill claims that



“Despite unprecedented material affluence, at the end of the twentieth century a small minority of the world’s population enjoys relatively affluent and secure conditions, in "islands" of prosperity and "contentment", whereas a substantial proportion of the world’s population lives in vast "seas" of poverty, and in situations characterised by insecurity, economic deprivation, ecological degradation and violence .”



Stephen Gill, The constitution of global capitalism

http://www.theglobalsite.ac.uk/press/010gill.htm



In making this observation, they obviously want to change this situation. They are interested in who produces globalisation and who benefits from it, but they also seek to emancipate people. They see the role of social movements as being important to efforts to move towards a more just world.



Why is globalisation actually important?



1) In what ways is contemporary globalisation is controversial in both scholarly circles and in public circles? Globalisation is raising a range of ethical issues: global poverty, forms of violence, environmental degradation, the role of individuals in international bodies like the WTO, IMF and World Bank, etc. Globalisation is also complicating ethical evaluation. Global problems are complex, cause and effect are often separated over time and space and addressing problems requires political action that addresses the multiple issues at the same time.



2) What impact is globalisation having on the domestic political processes of many states? Is globalization reinforcing patterns of inequality and domination, or is emancipating people and helping to realise justice within states in some cases.



3) Is globalisation leading to a transformation in the structures and substance of world politics? In particular, are contemporary global forms of activism and NGO political activity leading to the development of a global or transnational civil society and are the agents of transnational civil society are moving us towards a world where justice is more realisable than in the past?



Most significantly, it appears that in terms of organising global economic affairs we are witnessing a shift away from conventional interstate cooperation towards a more complicated model of cooperation where NGOs and social movements have some impact. This is a significant departure from the Westphalian idea of international relations being about state-to-state interaction. Indeed, some scholars suggest that this is the emergence of ‘complex multilateralism’ where states are overlayed by non-state actors (O’Brien et al 2000: 207).



4) These points lead to the question: can we modify the direction of globalisation? Is globalisation a natural and inevitable process or a political one directed by particular political forces and interests? Some theories like liberalism and Marxism see globalization as something objective that is ‘out there’, while critical theorists are more interested in who creates globalization.



5) Is globalization pushing us towards new forms of political community and organisation? One of the core questions facing International Relations scholars, and indeed everyone on our planet, is how are we to organise political authority and effective governance within the context of globalisation. Despite significant public disquiet about the type of globalisation that currently exists, the fact remains that over the last two or three decades various forms of international cooperation and governance have developed so that global capitalism and other forms of global integration are able to secure their existence. The role of non-state actors has also increased.



These forms of international and transnational governance coupled with processes of economic and cultural globalisation have called into question the nation state’s future role in a world system that promotes stability or justice. We are witnessing a ‘double displacement of state authority’ towards private market influences and towards global and regional bodies that are external to any state. There are real questions whether states around the world, even the most powerful, can control their domestic affairs in the face of globalised structures and forces. Consequently, in International Relations literature the idea of ‘cosmopolitan democracy’ has become a significant conjectural alternative to contemporary globalisation.



These are difficult questions I know! But these are questions that are becoming important to us not just as scholars but as citizens. IR theory has been an important part of the debates about the meaning and significance of globalisation.