Globalization has affected the changing the concept of the nation-state. While globalization process, nation-states have lost their impact in some areas. In this essay, I will examine this relationship, between the nation-state and globalization, after defining the nation and the nation-state. John Hutchinson defines a nation as “a modern political community founded on the ideas of self-determination, a consolidated homeland, and a distinctive vernacular high culture, but nationhood also rests on the myths and memories of older ethnic communities” (2003, p. 6). This definition combines many significant keywords of the unity of a group of people who have the same national identity, such as a high culture, belonging to a specific ethnicity. The connector factor between nation and state is self-determination which refers Lenin’s idea of the right of a nation to self-determination. Therefore, the nation-state simply is “a state whose primary loyalty is to a cultural self-identity, which we call a nation or nationality” (Pick, 2011, p. 5). The French Revolution is the start point of the “union of a state and a nation” notion. After the French Revolution, nationalism had spread, especially in the empires. Nation-state had more egalitarian understanding, so empires collapsed and nation-states emerged. The concept of the nation-state has changed due to interconnection and relationship of countries and globalization. Nowadays, the nation-state loses its effects in the context of security and economy; however, in the political arena, it still protects its worth.
Globalization’s effects on security can be seen in different areas such as participation of the international non-governmental organization in international security activity or the global terrorism problem. There are some international organizations to provide security in some (specific) states like NATO. Nowadays, international non-governmental organizations are the cooperative factor of national security of a state. According to Harvey Starr, “states and transnational forces can and will be co-exist” (as cited in Paul& Ripsman, 2010, p. 24). For example, national security forces are unprepared to fight terrorism due to their state-centric defense policies which is created like the Clausewitzian war, the whole state becomes an army against an identical opponent (Paul& Ripsman, 2010, p.20). For this reason, national security cannot be enough. Another effect of globalization is the dissuasiveness of the common economic benefits. According to Paul and Ripsman, “states are unwilling and unable to fight large-scale wars due to the deepening of economic interaction among states and multinational corporations” (2010, p.9). States’ economic situation is interdependent with other states, this makes wars unbeneficial for their economy and this creates following harm in other parts of states.
Another change which is a result of the globalization process is the economy and trade. According to Axel Hülsemeyer, globalization has different but highly related definition in the context of economic, political, cultural and social perspective. The economic definition of globalization is the expansion of the scale of the economic activity which is beyond the nation-state (as cited in Paul& Ripsman, 2010, p.5). In other words, globalized economic activities are independent of the nation-state. This situation has occurred due to multinational corporations and international organization like IMF. After the Adam Smith’s model of the free market economy, the economy of a state declared its independence. Adam Smith represents the economic liberty and prosperity which is promoted by the free market (Zupan, 2011, p. 177). And, economic liberty and prosperity bring independence, that’s why the globalized economy has started to be stateless. Moreover, classical economists seem the nation-states as an arbitrary abstraction because of its structure which is beyond national boundaries (Buffin Partners Inc., 2008, para.1). In short, globalization created a stateless economy; because of that reason, nation-states are not very effective on the economy anymore.
Globalization’s effect can be seen very clearly in the economy and security issues. The economy is almost independent of nation-states; about security, globalization is not totally invaded, the international organization is still in the second position. However, nation-states’ political power remains, because to be govern is a necessity to prevent chaos and due to communities benefits, global government cannot be acceptable. For a nation-state, political integrity brings many benefits for that specific nation. Spain is the one of most explanatory example. Spain is a unitary state; there is a central government and also seventeen autonomous governments. They united under one roof with an understanding of the principle of nation’ indivisibility, and secure their basic rights. The fundamental reason for regionalism is economic disequilibrium and cultural differences. There is only one national flag but regional-nationalist governments can use another one additionally. Furthermore, their official language is Spanish but they can use an additional one. Spain still preserves their nation-state structure however because of their economic benefits and some differences, they are autonomous governments. A Catalan politician called this micro-nationalism (Nunez & Tortella, 2003, p.128); they are united but at the same time they are separated. This situation demonstrates that nation-states still protect their political power, but at the same time, globalization creates a world without borders. According to Robert Holton globalization is a changing process in many areas, but it is hard to change the attached with the place where people belong. In that sense, Holton seems nationalism as a way of resistance to globalization (as cited Memon, 2006, p. 164).
To conclude, globalization has changed many things of understanding of a state, nation-states can be seen redundant because of the globalized economy and international security services but nation-states protect their importance today, and still essential to protect political benefits of nations.
References
Buffin Partners Inc. (2008). Globalization and the Nation-State. Retrieved from: http://www.buffinfoundation.org/Commentary_2008_08.pdf .
Hutchinson, J. (2003). The Past, Present, and the Future of the Nation-State. Georgetown Journal of International Affair, 5-12.
Memon, K. (2006). Globalization and the Nation-State [Review of the book Globalization and the Nation – State, by R. J. Holton] International Research Journal of Arts &Humanities 34, 160-164.
Nunez, C. E., Tortella, G. (2003). Economic development and the problems of national state formation: the case of Spain. In Teichova A., Matis H. (Eds.) Nation, State and the Economy in History (113 – 130). New York, United States of America: Cambridge University Press.
Paul T. V., Ripsman N. M. (2004). Under Pressure? Globalisation and the National Security State. Millenium-Journal of International Studies 33 (2), 355-380.
Pick, A. C (2011). The Nation State: An Essay. Retrieved from: http://www.thenationstate.co.uk/TheNationState.pdf.
Zupan, M. A. (2011). The Virtue of Free Market. Cato Journal 31 (2), 171-198.
Sinem Atılgan Uşaklı 