Chapter 15 Revision Guide

Globalization has been one of the most topical but also controversial topics in recent years.
International Relations as a field of inquiry has a great deal invested in these debates given the centrality of the states in ‘inter-national’ relations.
Debate on globalization involves a semantic minefield on the meaning of the term as well as considerable empirical disputation.
Globalization debate in IR is an ontological dispute – a dispute between state-centric and non-state-centric approaches.
The dominant perspectives in IR, such as realism and neorealism are state-centric perspectives and hence have the most to lose in the globalization debate.
Other IR theoretical approaches do not have as much at stake as they are not predicated on the state-centric ontological claim.
The globalization thesis associated with the neoliberals and cosmopolitans challenges the relevance of realism on the following grounds:

Sovereignty is compromised by cross-order flows.
Globalization rises out of new issues of a global scale.
Transnational institutions of global governance are emerging.
Non-state actors also influence politics.
High politics have been relegated in relation to series of low politics issues.
Economic globalization is escaping national jurisdiction.
Globalization overall constitutes the passing of the era of the nation-state.

Sovereignty refers to the capacity of states to be independent of external influences and is significant to realism.
Globalists argue that since sovereignty does not guarantee policy-making capacity states need to pool their sovereignty. This debate pits the realists against the proponents of theories of globalization.
It is unfortunate that the debate has focused so sharply on the realist ontology. This has led to the confusion of series of empirical, analytical and theoretical issues. Realism and liberal intergovernmentalism are both lenses through which to look at the debate but neither of them necessarily captures the entirety of the complex, multi-layered picture but different aspects of it.
There are also more nuanced debates on globalization, as that between Buzan and Held (1998). Buzan conceded many points of globalists but still defends a qualified form of realism by departmentalizing globalization thesis to an economic process. This is a sophisticated position but is not tested adequately in empirical terms.
It is dangerous to assume that when theorists talk of globalization that they know what they are talking about and that they are talking about the same thing.
Globalization can mean a variety of things: from cross-border flows to interdependence to transnationalisation of governance. Individually, these things may mean a variety of things: cross-border flows, for example, can refer to flows of goods or investment or flows of infectious diseases.
Unsurprisingly, sceptics tend to adopt rather strictly defined conceptions of what globalization consists of, whereas globalists tend to accept less discriminating definitional standards.
Globalization is difficult to define because it is a multifaceted process necessitating a multi-dimensional conceptualization. In devising clearer definitions, it would be best to focus on defining different dimensions of globalization and to understand globalization in negative rather than positive terms, that is, in terms of what it is not.
In these terms, globalization can be clarified as follows.

National versus global. That which is not associated with the nation state, that is, supra-national;
International versus global. That which is beyond inter-nationalization;
Regionalization versus globalization. That which is beyond the special scope of regionalization;
Protectionism/isolationism versus globalization/internationalism. That which is counter-posed to protectionism.

In this chapter globalization is defined in fairly specific terms to enable an empirical examination: as ‘a process (or set of processes) that embodies a transformation in the spatial organization of social relations and transactions, generating trans-continental and inter-regional flows and networks of activity, interaction and power’ (Held, 1999: 16).
While what counts as evidence for globalization is a semantic question, the question whether globalization is occurring remains an empirical question.
This has led to a conceptualization that privileges globalization’s understanding in economic terms, with almost every empirical claim is contested in the globalization literature.
Nonetheless, balance of opinion has shifted towards a more sceptical position, which is also defended here.
Empirical record relates to two aspects of globalization: its extent (geographical character) and its consequences for the policy-making autonomy of the state.
In terms of the extent of globalization sceptics point to three justifications for their position (see Table 15.3 for an elaboration):

They point out that evidence suggests that the extent of globalization is not unprecedented.
What is often called globalization is actually better described through notions of regionalization and triadization.
Evidence does not support economists' predictions on interest rate convergence and domestic savings-investment correlations.

In terms of consequences of globalization, sceptics also have their defences. Evidence does not support the implication that states' intra-regional integration exceeds that of inter-regional integration. As such, regionalization not globalization is more evident.
The most accurate description of such events is triadization (the integration of American, East-Asian and European regional economies). In sum, financial markets are less globally integrated as policy-makers using (now) standard economic models assume them to be.
Thus, welfare states continue to attract significant investment.
Case study. Philip G. Cerny has argued that globalization has an important role to play in transforming welfare states into competition states. Cerny argues that as investment and trade flows increase, national economies are increasingly pitted against each other in a competitive struggle.
The welfare state is a useful point for such analysis: First, the ability to provide for citizens is a crucial indicator of states’ sovereignty. Second, such provisions make possible the measuring of the relative power of states compared to non-state actors. In sum Cerny argues that competitive struggles force states to scale back their internal regulations and levels of taxation, which in turn makes a welfare state impracticable for public finances.
Case study continued. However, the argument that we are moving to an era of competition states is not straightforward. This is because cost is not necessarily the only determinant of consumer choice in a complex market and it seems that investors continue to be interested in welfare spenders.
Welfare states can also be economically open. Cerny attributes causal force to a fully integrated economy and to globalization, but the existence of these is derived from theoretical assumptions rather than empirical reality.
Conclusion. Globalization is often presented as a challenge to the very field of IR. Yet assessment of empirical evidence suggests that the globalization that the many globalists have described does not exist, nor is globalization necessarily an accurate term to describe the processes. There is still much to be gained from focusing on state as a key, if not the only, actor.