The Persistence of the State

Not although globalization has brought an end to 'sovereignty, it has not so far augured the demise of the state. On the contrary, with the exception of a few implosions of government (e.g. in Somalia and Afghanistan), the state has proved to be highly robust in recent times. Even the turbulence attend­ing the collapse of communist rule yielded only cer­tain changes to state borders. As a structure of governance the state has remained intact in the ter­ritories of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

Indeed, most governments have during the time of globalization actually enlarged their payroll, budget, scope of activities, and surveillance capaci­ties. For the moment there is little sign that global­ization is leading either to a centralized, sovereign world government, as liberal universalists have long predicted and advocated, or to world-scale anarchical governance through local communities, as promoted by some radical ecologists. Hence globalists forecast the demise of the territorial state at their peril. Neither they nor the state-centric real­ists have it right. Globalization is not dissolving the state, but it has not left it untouched either. The challenge for students of politics is to determine how the growth of supraterritorial social space is altering the activities and role of the state in con­temporary history. Two possible general shifts can be briefly mentioned here.

First, it could well be that, under the influence of globalization, the constituency of the state is changing. The sovereign state normally promoted domestic interests and acted as a protective barrier against external intrusions. In contrast, the post-sovereign state often advances global as well as national causes. For example, the Iranian state dur­ing the 1980s gave extensive support to worldwide Islamicism. More generally, contemporary states frequently serve the interests of global capital in addition to (and sometimes to the detriment of) national capital.

Second, it may be that globalization is reducing the chances of major interstate war. It is striking that most contemporary warfare takes the form of internal insurrection against a national government rather than armed conflict between states. Although it is too early to draw definitive conclu­sions on this point, the expansion of global inter­ests would seem to be substantially reducing incentives for states to embark on territorial con­quest. Interstate warfare generally advances little purpose for—and sooner positively harms—global capitalism, global environmental management, global tourism, and so on.

Key Points

• Globalization is connected to a number of poten­tially far-reaching changes in world order.

• Globalization has presented a fundamental chal­lenge to the Westphalian states-system and its central principle of state sovereignty.

• Although globalization has brought the demise of sovereignty, it is by no means dissolving the state.

• The post-sovereign state may well behave differ­ently from its Westphalian predecessor.