THE GLOBALIZATION DEBATES AND STATE’S AGENTIAL POWER

Year 2012, Volume: 12 Issue: 24, 81 - 104, 01.12.2012

Fazlı Doğan

Abstract

This study argues that there are many different perceptions concerning state’s agential
power and impacts of globalization on state that both define and shape the debates on
globalization and the meanings of globalization. The globalization with social, cultural,
economic and political dimensions has become a buzz word since 1990s in international
relations. There have been many debates and discussions on the meaning of globalization
over the last two decades. For example Held and McGrew (1999) have classified the
definitions of globalization as globalists and skeptics. According to Held and McGrew, globalists believe that globalization is a real and significant historical process that has
been emerging from structural changes in world history. On the contrary skeptics argue
that globalization is a kind of ideological fiction or myth referring to European colonial
expansion from 1870s. They also believe that the process we have been experiencing is
not substantively new. To define globalization in their analyses both sides have focused on
market economy.
Globalization is composed of three different aspects. First aspect of globalization is
idealist referring to a set of beliefs. Second aspect is behavioral issues meaning a set of
rules, activities and principles. The third aspect is material issues referring to a set of
results. Idealists believe that the world has been transforming into wealthier and happier
than before with the effects of globalization. Behaviorists considering globalization as
behavioral issues believe that old and new social institutions have been reorganized
therefore “all that solid melting into air”. Materialists have focused on the mobility and
velocity of the technology, capital, commodities, and people/workers. Although there are
many different definitions of globalizations, every part of the debate means that the term
of globalization is a cliché of our time. This cliché embraces free movements of goods,
capital and knowledge, transnational decision making process and negotiation,
interdependence between states, historical evolution of the state system, ramification of
the global problems, and global responsibilities of people and states all over the world.
Scholte (2000) identified four notions of the globalization. These are
internationalization, universalization, westernization, and liberalization.
Internationalization refers to the growth of interstate and cross-border interactions, and
interdependence between states and people; liberalization refers to a process of removing
restrictions on movements in order to create an open world economy; universalization
refers to a process of spreading various objects and experiences to people all over the
world and universalization suggests that the world is becoming homogenized;
westernization in these cases globalization is associated with a process of
homogenization, as all the world becomes western, modern and, more particularly,
American. Scholte points out that these four notions of the globalization are outmoded
definitions thus we need conceptual development to properly characterize today’s world.
Scholte defines globalization as deterritorialization or the growth of supraterritorial
relations between people. In this usage, globalization refers to a far-reaching change in the
nature of social space. According to Scholte transnational connections and
interdependence between people and states with the effects of globalization have ended
the age of territorialism that is a situation where social geography has been entirely
territorial since the very beginning of the modern age. Scholte points out that even though
territory still matters very much in our world; it no longer constitutes the whole of our
geography. Additionally Kaloudis (2003) believes that the concept of “global
transformation” is more useful to define the dramatic changes that we are facing today. He
argues that the concept of global transformation can easily describe many different
problems such as the changing nature of the world and conflict, the role of international
law, the role of United Nations in international relations.
We should address to declining role of the state in international relations in debates on
globalization. Globalization has affected and shaped how we define the international
relations. There are many debates on the effects of globalization on state since 1990s. On
the one side of the debate many scholars argue that state has not adapted to meet new
challenges of globalization and rapid change in international relations. They also claim that state is outmoded and obsolete as a political form. The role of the state has declined
to solve new global problems such as international financial crises. On the other side of
the debate scholars believe that state is still able to meet challenges of globalization
successfully and effects of globalization doesn’t challenge the state but reinforces it. To
sum up debates on impacts of globalization on state can be classified into two
perspectives. These are strong globalization versus weak state and weak globalization
versus strong state. These approaches can also be called as structure centric and agent
centric approaches.
According to structural theories of globalization, the world economy has been shaped
by capitalist structure and nation states should adapt the order that based on this structure.
While the radical interpretation of the structural approach argues that global structure
isolate state, moderates believe that the effects of global structure erode the role of the
state. Radicals argue that relations between globalization and state capacity are zero-sum
games thus the traditional sovereign state is on the brink of death as a result of the impacts
of globalization. According to Hobson and Ramesh (2002) these approaches produce a
lop-sided analysis of the relationship between state and effects of globalization. They
offer an emergent third way which they call structurationist approach. They believe that
structurationist approach enables us to go beyond the antinomies of agent-centrism and
structuralism. This approach includes a new theory of the state which accords it agential
power but also recognizes that the state is embedded within, and shaped by, domestic and
global social forces/structures.
The structurationist approach has the following assumptions: human beings and their
organizations are purposeful units whose actions transform the society in which they live;
both domestic and global society is made up of social relationships. Therefore state is
neither a victim of the global institutions nor a kind of autonomous agent which is
independent from those institutions. Additionally structurationist approach argues that the
relationship between state and global structure should not be envisaged as a zero-sum
game. The states are nested or socially embedded within domestic and global social
structures.

Keywords

State, Globalization, Structurationist Approach, Deterritorialization, Global Society

KÜRESELLEŞME TARTIŞMALARI VE BİR AKTÖR OLARAK DEVLETİN GÜCÜ

Abstract

Bu çalışma, küreselleşme tartışmalarının özünde ve bu tartışmaların çeşitlenmesinde temel belirleyici olarak devletin etkinliği ve küreselleşme karşısındaki gücüne ilişkin farklı algıların olduğunu iddia etmektedir. Küreselleşme, uluslararasılaşma; liberalleşme, evrenselleşme; batılılaşma gibi çok farklı şekillerde ve bağlamda tartışılmaktadır. Bu tartışmalar, devletin etkinliği ve gücü bağlamında, güçlü küreselleşmeye karşı zayıf devlet ve zayıf küreselleşmeye karşı güçlü devlet şeklinde ya da başka bir ifade ile yapı merkezli yaklaşımlar ve aktör merkezli yaklaşımlar şeklinde sınıflandırılabilir. Bu çalışma, devleti etkileşimde bulunduğu yerel, bölgesel ve küresel toplum karşısında ne pasif bir kurban ne de tam otonomi sahibi olarak görmek yerine, hem bu yapıları etkileyen hem de onlardan etkilenen yerel, bölgesel ve küresel otonomisi olan bir aktör olarak değerlendirmektedir.

Keywords

Devlet, Küreselleşme, Yapılanmacı Yaklaşım, Ülkesizleşme, Küresel Toplum