Globalising national states

Abstract

Globalisation has ambiguous effects on states. On the one hand, it favours national states since citizens' identification with their state provides for political and social stability. On the other hand, globalisation makes it difficult for states to be national because the scope of sovereign decision-making is reduced, and many citizens prioritise trans-national networks over national ones. Hence well-established national states, which are sufficiently resilient to maintain a national culture while also engaging with the wider world, enjoy a comparative advantage over such states who either fail to maintain national cohesion or seek to protect it by rejecting foreign influence. The present article revisits the most common typologies of nations and national states, and discusses how four main types of nations (ethnic, civic, plural and class) cope with globalisation. The article builds on the assumption that the 'foreign policy' field, notably the capacity of states to shape popular global policies, must be included in discussions of the future of the national state. The challenge of globalisationGlobalisation is understood here in a broad sense of rapidly expanding trade, investments, financial flows, travel, information and other forms of worldwide communication. These trends received a boost from the demise of real socialism during the 1980s-90s, when formerly secluded continents were opened up to penetration to global economic and cultural forces. Within the globalised world, the role of the state is changing. The distinction between internal and external policies is being increasingly blurred. It becomes more and more important for states to influence not only the regional but the global environment, and more and more impossible to determine developments inside one's borders without engaging in supra-national decision making. Foreign ministries and diplomatic services are being transformed. While they mainly used to manage bilateral diplomatic relations with other states, they now seek to promote and co-ordinate all kinds of trans-national interaction, and must spend considerable time on preparing and advocating their own policies in multilateral forums. Every government finds it increasingly problematic to define the division of labour between its Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the other ministries. Politics is often hampered by the fact that its subject matter is trans-or international whereas the electorate, its consciousness and concerns remain focussed on so-called domestic affairs.

Globalisation and the decline of national identity? An exploration across sixty‐three countries

“…Although the impact of globalisation on the state has long been a subject of study in general, theorists of nationalism have only recently begun to investigate the impact of globalisation (Delanty and Kumar ) . The customary distinction between primordial and modernist theories of nationalism is also reflected in conflicting interpretations of the influence of globalisation on national identity (Kaldor ; Tønnesson ).…”

“…The effect of globalisation on national identity is complex. Some consider it a force that undermines national identity, while others argue that globalisation trends reinforce national feelings (Calhoun 2007;Guibernau 2001;Kaldor 2004;Kymlicka 2003;Zuelow et al 2007;Tønnesson 2004). Inconsistent interpretations of the nexus between globalisation and national identity reflect not only different theoretical predispositions regarding the meaning of nationalism but also the different methods used to examine that relationship.…”

The nexus between globalization and ethnic identity: A view from below

“…Globalization’s effects on national identity are widely disputed. While some regard globalization as undermining national identity and increasing cosmopolitanism, others argue that it works in the opposite direction, possibly even reinforcing national feelings in the form of a backlash—or that it impacts different segments in society in dissimilar ways (Calhoun, 2007; Delanty and Kumar, 2006; Guibernau, 2001; Halikiopoulou and Vasilopoulou, 2011; Holton, 2011; Pryke, 2009; Roudometof, 2014; Smith, 2007; Tønnesson, 2004). While much of this discussion has been conducted on historical and theoretical levels, empirical studies examining national identity ‘from below’ have also been carried out.…”

Navigating the ethnic boundary: From ‘in-between’ to plural ethnicities among Thai middle-class migrant women in Hong Kong

“…Globalization’s effects on ethnic identity are widely disputed. While some regard globalization as undermining ethnic identity and increasing cosmopolitanism, others argue that it works in the opposite direction, possibly even reinforcing ethnic feelings in the form of a backlash – or that it impacts different segments in society in dissimilar ways (Halikiopoulou and Vasilopoulou, 2011; Tønnesson, 2004).…”