Globalization and State Power Essay

As a relatively new concept in the context of social sciences, globalization is the considerably the universal tool that embodies sets of processes that connect societies thus fragmenting and transcending the social structure it confronts (Krieger, 2005). The state then serves as an indispensable institution under practically all projected contingencies, but does countenance new and influential challenges to its foundational mandates mandates. The multifarious debates on globalization has increasingly centered on the relation of the nation-state to economic schemas. Although such connotation is gradually misbranded in rationale, either the nation-state or the inter-state classification is seen retaining its primacy as the axis of international relations and world development. The coining of â€Å"strong state,† is it perceived that the state, having been considered as the bridge of globalization in a dualist construct that posits separate logics for an expanding economy and political system (Williams, 2002). In the international community, it can be observed that the states, leaders, or other individuals who have the power in the international community has a large influence, either deliberate or unintentional, over the decision of other states, leaders or other individuals. The affairs of every single nation can be noted as unique in many ways (Patterson, 2000). Direct intervention from external elements such as the other states may very well diminish the sovereignty of a nation over its own territory. This is to say that every nation has a primordial reign over its own domain which guarantees—or ought to guarantee—the idea that the state is supreme in terms of power in its own land (Kacowicz, 1993). But what happens to this power in the context of a large international community with varying degrees of capabilities, resources and, ultimately, political power? Analysis on the social-spatial distinction and power of globalization The socio-spatial distinction and power of globalization, which at hand is then inherited to the state, is apparently what makes globalization not only a tool for reaching almost all the corners of the globe, but including the long-term series effects which shall surface. Consequently, how the state responds when globalization is escalating will have a noteworthy impact on its capability to retort when globalization falters. Since the state possess both governmental and corporate power, scholars point out the fact that corporate capitalism is the blood that keeps holds all nations and binds them up together despite the issue of diversity. Thus, it is through the philosophy of social justice that these factors are evaluated. Synthesis on the role of a state in the context of globalization The sources of power in international relations can then be presumed to result primarily from the resources of the state or leader. These resources need not essentially correspond to financial resources for there are many other resources that can empower a state or a leader in international affairs. One of these resources is manpower which China and India can be noted as wealthy of. How does manpower become a source of power in international relations? The answer can be traced from the presumption that more people means more hands capable of contributing to the workforce. Although the industrial revolution and information and communications technology have radically altered the demand for manpower, it can be observed that the expansion of industries and technology further required additional manpower. With states such as China and India a cut above the rest in terms of manpower, the amount of industrial production from within the state relatively becomes higher than those states with very minimal workforce. And while a healthy local industry boosts a state’s economy, sending manpower to foreign countries further amplifies the possibility of expanding the gross income of the nation (Krieger, 2005). For the most part, a financially wealthy nation has more purchasing power in many ways which gives it the capacity to take control over resources and manipulate them according to the interest of the state (Williams, 2002). The geography of a certain state also gives it power, specifically strategic power, in wielding a dominant force not only in terms of military affairs but also in terms of commerce and trade or economic progress. For the most part, a state which is situated within the perimeter of an adjacent state is expected to have a form of trade relations (Krieger, 2005). Communication also becomes inevitable between these adjacent states since borders separating them become diminished through wireless communication. For instance, a nation such as Italy surrounded by neighboring states is very much alive in terms of trade and commerce, giving it the economic power in contrast to ‘isolated’ states (Williams, 2002). Conclusions and further remarks To presume that the definition of power is a not static concept is to presume that the essence of power changes such that at one point it may refer to competence to manage and manipulate resources in harmony to the interest of the state or of leaders. On another point, it may not refer to the opposite such as the competence of the lower class or of the members of the state to yield and manipulate resources. Yet this presumption is misleading for the reason that the parallels of both instances are masked by the idea that leaders does not include the larger members of the state or that the members of the state do not include the leaders of the state. Clearly, how the state responds to globalization depicts its power and capabilities. References Kacowicz, A. M. (1993).Teaching International Relations in a Changing World: Four Approaches. Political Science and Politics, 26(1), 76-80. Krieger, J. (2005) Globalization and State Power: A Reader. New Jersey: Longman. Patterson, A. S. (2000). It’s a Small World: Incorporating Service Learning into International Relations Courses. Political Science and Politics, 33(4), 817-822. Williams, J. (2002). Kill ’em All’: The American Military in Korea. Retrieved January 21, 2008, from http://www. bbc. co. uk/history/worldwars/coldwar/korea_usa_01. shtml