Globalization in World Politics

Introduction

Globalization did not begin with the age of the internet, as commonly assumed. Its beginning can be traced back to the fifteenth century when Europeans colonized many areas of the world. Regardless of its historical background, globalization, as a contested concept, may be defined as “the widening, deepening and speeding up of worldwide interconnectedness in all aspects of contemporary social life, from the cultural to the criminal, the financial to the spiritual” (Held et al., 1999, quoted in Wastnidge, 2015a, p. 142).

This essay will focus on the transformational trend of globalization in world politics. As such, it will begin by outlining the three areas of political globalization through which states and non-state actors operate. Then, it will compare and contrast two opposing views on globalization: the hyperglobalist perspective and the skeptic perspective. Next, it will draw on two dominant theories of international relations (IR) – realism and liberalism – and consider their roles in explaining two real-world events: the Russia-Ukraine war and the US-China trade relationship. After that, it will use the European Union (EU) as a case study of regionalism, exploring its political institutions and their distinct functions. Moreover, it will examine two distinct views on governance: the intergovernmental model and the supranational model. Finally, it will evaluate whether globalization, as exemplified in EU’s continuous expansion, does mark a change in world politics.

The Operational Areas of Political Globalization

States are not mere actors in global politics; states define the rules that govern the international system. For many IR scholars, the foundation of the modern world order has been laid in the seventeenth century, when warring European powers signed a peace treaty known as Peace of Westphalia (1648). The Peace of Westphalia ushered in three key principles of international law under which states exist: territoriality, sovereignty and autonomy of nation states (The Open University, 2019a). Moreover, the European colonization, which occurred alongside the Industrial Revolution, led to “the emergence and ultimate success of industrial capitalism and the combination of scientific, civic and territorial developments” (Wastnidge, 2015a, pp. 137-38). All those events paved the way for globalization as we know it today.

The increased interconnectedness between people, financial markets, and nation-states resulted in a decreased control of states over their cultural, economic, and political systems. Wastnidge (2015a, p. 145) identifies three areas of political globalization through which states and non-state actors operate. First, there are the numerous institutions – e.g., the United Nations (UN), the European Union (EU), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and so on – through which states cooperate and assume collective responsibility in dealing with regional or global challenges. Second, there are the UN-affiliated organizations that (a) oversee the implementation of international agreements (e.g., through the Security Council), (b) provide humanitarian relief through the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) along with sister agencies, and (c) defend human rights, as outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Finally, there are the non-state actors, such as the international non-governmental organizations (iNGOs), which campaign on a wide range of causes, such as human rights, the environment, and terrorism (e.g., Amnesty International, Green Peace, and al-Qaeda, respectively).

This transformation in the political aspects of globalization can be seen as “the extension of political power and political activity beyond the boundaries of the modern nation-state” (Held et al., 1999, quoted in Wastnidge, 2015a, p. 145). Despite the increased interconnectedness and cooperation between various political actors on the world stage, some activist and political actors remain fiercely opposed to globalization, or to the economic aspects of it, as expressed by the sporadic anti-globalization movements occurring intermittently. Others are more skeptic still. They think that we live in less integrated world and see the transformative aspect of globalization as being overstated to “serve the interests of the global economic market that drives it” (Wastnidge, 2015a, p. 147). This skeptic view about the plausibility of the transformative power of globalization is often contrasted with the hyperglobalist view, which embraces globalization, seeing states as no longer distinct and separate (The Open University, 2019b).

The Hyperglobalists vs the Skeptics

The hyperglobalists herald the triumph of neo-liberalism in establishing a single market economy, arguing that it has resulted in a “‘borderless’ world where economies are ‘denationalised’” (Wastnidge, 2015a, pp. 147-48), mainly through transnational corporations (TNCs).

To be sure, the ever-increasing power of TNCs has marginalized the states’ control over their own separate economies, as when they shift their incomes from higher tax countries to lower tax countries. In recent years, for example, Apple (a TNC giant) exploited a loophole in Ireland’s tax system (a lower tax country) by paying a meager rate of foreign profits it earned over many years, “triggering one of the world’s biggest tax disputes and a political showdown between Europe and the US” (Financial Times, 2019). The skeptics points to such instances for arguing that the TNCs are more nationalistic than global in their influence, and that the developed world still controls the global financial system.

In short, the skeptics think that the globalization trend is being overstated. They see the transformational process that requires national economies to obey the market as “something of a myth” (Hirst and Thompson, 2009, quoted in Wastnidge, 2015a, p. 148). Some even go so far as to claim that the world is less interconnected than it was during the European colonization, seeing the current trend as leading to an increase of internationalization rather than globalization. While both terms exhibit an increase in interconnectedness, the former refers to a growth in the interdependence between nation-states, while the latter sees the global economy as eliminating the borders between countries, where nation states become “subservient to global market forces” (Wastnidge, 2015a, pp. 148-49).

Realism vs Liberalism

War and peace are one of the most important issues in world politics that any political theory has to deal with. Realism, which can be seen as aligned with the skeptic perspective, draws on the works of prominent realist theorists, such as E. H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau. Realists see the condition of the international system as being in a state of anarchy – i.e., lacking a legitimate overarching authority –, where the dread of external threat compels states to “accumulate the means of violence in the pursuit of self-preservation” (Burchill, 2011, quoted in Wastnidge, 2015a, p. 151). For example, when states perceive an existential threat by a more powerful, malign neighbor, they seek to guarantee their survival by creating a balancing coalition or alliance to check the aggressive and dangerous state, rather than relying on a global organization to protect them, such as the UN’s Security Council (The Open University, 2019c).

A good case in point, for realists, is the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine. This conflict, which started with Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, has set ablaze the bloodiest conflict in Europe since World War II. Some experts view Russia’s “unprovoked” invasion of Ukraine in 2022 as “a manifestation of renewed geopolitical rivalry between major world powers” (Masters, 2023). For realists, the Russia-Ukraine war is a compelling evidence of the continuing struggle for power between states. In the absence of an overarching power to prevent disputes from escalating into wars, states will continue to maintain the threat of force and seek to balance their power against others.

Contrary to the realists who see the state as an instrument of power, liberalists emphasize individual liberty and the state’s enabling role in this (Jackson and S?rensen, 1999, cited in Wastnidge, 2015a, p. 152). Liberalism draws its ideas from classic liberal philosophers, such as John Locke and Jeremy Bentham. Liberalism also draws on contemporary political theorists, such as Kenichi Ohmae and Francis Fukuyama, whose views can be seen as aligned with the hyperglobalist perspective. Fukuyama famously proclaimed the “end of history”, seeing the end of the Cold War as a universal triumph of Western liberal democracy and “the ultimate culmination of the ideological struggles that have characterised human history” (1989, quoted in Wastnidge, 2015b, p. 147-48). Moreover, liberalism thinks that the interdependence between various individuals, groups, corporations, and politicians, has led to a decline in the importance of the military, and therefore to a reduced dependence on force. An example that liberalists point to is the tense political relationship between the US and China, which is at best a competitive one, and at worst a potentially combative one.

In dealing with China, the Obama (liberal) administration sought to improve bilateral relations. For example, it encouraged the communist state to integrate into the global economic institutions, hoping that that will eventually transform its authoritarian regime into a more liberal one. A China that is integrated and active in global institutions “is less likely to act aggressively if its interests are tied to those of other states” (Wastnidge, 2015a, p. 154). The Trump (realist) administration, by contrast, focused on competition and confrontation in its trade relationship with China. For example, Trump’s protectionist policy sought to (a) boost the US manufacturing industry and (b) narrow the US trade deficit with China, regardless of the effects that such a move could have on US-China relations, which is already dominated by competition and distrust.

The EU: A Paradigm of Regional Integrations

To further discern the dichotomy between realism and liberalism, we need to see it through the lens of regionalism. Wastnidge (2015b, p. 167) defines regionalism as “a process in global politics whereby states mutually agree to cooperate and work together as a regional bloc, often coordinating trade and economic policies.” Regionalism has been prevalent in global politics since the end of World War II, where most regional groupings of states ideologically revolved around one of the two major superpowers (the US or the Soviet Union), mainly to guarantee their security.

The EU is often cited as the preeminent example of such regional integrations. The idea of a cooperative European community was initially driven by “security concerns, political stability, socio-economic reconstruction and the political symbolism associated with a club of Western European liberal democracies” (Wallace, 1996, quoted in Wastnidge, 2015b, p. 169). This integration first began with the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1952, comprising six countries. The ECSC was replaced by the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1957, opening the door for other (European) countries to join the club (the UK joined in 1973) (The Open University, 2019d). The end of the Cold War ushered in a new kind of regionalism, one “based on shared histories, economic links, political ties, cultural links or security alignments” (The Open University, 2019e). Some saw this shift as a response to the transformations that globalization brought about in the international system, necessitating collective action to regain control over global market forces. In 1993, the EEC was officially renamed the European Union (EU). In 1995, with the fall of the Soviet Union, the integration process gained momentum with the inclusion of many countries from Eastern Europe. By 2013, EU member states totaled 28, with expectation of further expansion. However, with the withdrawal of the UK from the EU in 2020 (Brexit), the number of member states has been reduced to 27.

This widening trend has been accompanied by a deepening trend, taking the form of added responsibilities granted to the EU by its member states, altering its guiding principle from cooperation in the production of coal and steel to the development of a common monetary policy in the form of a single currency (the euro). Moreover, the gradual increase of delegated responsibilities to the EU, which deals with an extensive range of issues, resulted in member states losing their exclusive responsibilities for governing their own political affairs.

Hix (2011, cited in Wastnidge, 2015b, p. 173) identifies five types of “policy outputs”, or regulations, that the EU political system generates. First, there is the regulatory outputs that manage trade, services, and environmental and social policies. The primary regulatory bodies in the EU are the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, and the European Commission (EC). Second, there is the redistributive policies that deal with the transfer of resources from one group to another via the EU budget. Managing the EU budget lies in the hands of the EC, which also “promotes the general interest of the EU by proposing and enforcing legislation as well as by implementing policies” (European Union, 2019). Third, there is the macroeconomic policies, where the European Central Bank (ECB) manages the economic and monetary union (EMU), mainly by regulating the interest rates and controlling inflation. Fourth, there is the internal policies concerning civil policies and social rights of EU citizens, as put forth by the (EC). Finally, there is the foreign policies that ensure the EU speaks with a single voice on the world stage. In addition to its regulations and policies, the EU has its own legislative body, namely the directly elected European Parliament.

The European Parliament enjoys legislative and supervisory responsibilities that can affect the decisions of national states. Crucially, the EU has its own legal order, or law, embedded in the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The ECJ has supremacy over national laws and, in some cases, “can be directly invoked by the citizens of the member states, against their own governments” (Wastnidge, 2015b, p. 173).

Thus, the advanced institutional arrangements, policy coordination, and economic power of the EU influence its member states both at the domestic and international levels, rendering the EU a prominent actor in global politics. To get the full picture of how the European system of governance operates, we need to see it through the prism of two contrasting governing models: the intergovernmental model and the supranational model.

Intergovernmentalism vs Supranationalism

There are at least three types of intergovernmental organizations operating in the international system. First, there are those that have a global scope or presence, such as the UN or iNGOs. Second, there are single-purpose, multilateral organizations, such as the WTO or IMF. Third, there are regional associations, such as the EU, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Gulf Cooperation Countries (GCC), the BRICS nations, and so on. Unlike all international organizations, however, the EU exhibits an extremely extensive and intensive form of intergovernmental organization – no other regional or international organization even comes close to matching its institutional structure and pooling of sovereignty.

Advocates of the intergovernmental model argue that the pooling of decisions related to sovereignty, and the powers delegated to the EU’s extensive institutions (the European Parliament, the EC, and the ECJ) should remain under the collective control of all the EU member states, given that the “EU’s ‘policy outputs’ are derived from the joint authority of the member states and their governments” (Wastnidge, 2015b, p. 176). The ultimate concern for the supporters of this model is the loss of the sovereignty and power of member states. As such, intergovernmentalism can be seen as aligned with the skeptic perspective, namely in the belief that member states should follow their own national interests and exercise a veto on propositions they do not favor.

By contrast, the supranational governing model argues that the delegation of power and the influence of EU’s political and social institutions result in “decision-making mechanism that can override the objections of one or more member states” (Wastnidge, 2015b, p. 177). By forming a supranational authority, the EU member states collectively practice their general rights of sovereignty to limit the future exercise of their individual rights in some areas, handing over jurisdiction in those areas to anther body. (Ultimate sovereignty is not compromised because any state can choose to leave the EU, as Brexit has shown.) Consequently, supranationalism can be seen as aligned with the hyperglobalist perspective, namely in the belief that a lager amount of power should be given to a collective authority and limited ability of states to veto proposals, forcing them to follow decisions supported by a majority of their fellow member states.

There is a disagreement among some scholars about whether to regard the EU as either an intergovernmental or a supranational organization. A helpful way of understanding the EU’s governance system may lie in seeing it as a hybrid form of governance. Caporaso, a leading theorist of the EU, thinks that “[t]he central conceptual device is not the isolated ideal type but rather a continuum running from pure intergovernmental politics … to a supranational polity in which [EU] institutions possess jurisdiction and authority over the individual member states in specified policy areas” (1998, quoted in Wastnidge, 2015b, pp. 177-78).

Conclusion

The EU, as the preeminent example of regionalism in global politics, ideally exemplifies the three main characteristics of globalization – i.e., the widening, deepening, and speeding up of worldwide interconnectedness. The regulations that the EU political institutions generate enables us to make the following conclusions.

First, the gradual widening of the EU increasingly extends the political power and activities of states beyond their national boundaries. This validates the hyperglobalists’ and the liberalists’ views about the transformative influence of globalization in world politics. Second, the deepening trend, as observed in the EU’s shifting of its guiding principles from cooperation in the production of coal and steel to the development of a common monetary policy and pooling of sovereignty, undermines the skeptics’ and the realists’ claims that we live in a less integrated world. Third, the speeding up of the EU’s expansion, by integrating the (less developed) East European countries into the club of the (developed) West European countries, after the fall of the Soviet Union, is more in the interest of the former than the latter. This repudiates the skeptics’ claim that globalization is overstated to serve the interests of Western countries. Finally, the increase in interdependence and the greater interconnectedness between states are not driven by the need to guarantee their own survival, as the realists postulates, but by their pressing need to deal with the economic and political challenges that globalization has brought about in the international system.

While it is not a recent phenomenon, the transformative markings of globalization in world politics remain a source of disagreement among political theorists. The realists, for example, defend states’ supremacy in global political affairs, given the anarchical state of the world. As such, they can be seen as having a pessimistic worldview. The liberalists, by contrast, upholds the international community and focuses more on cooperation between states. As such, they can be seen as having a more optimistic worldview. Globalization, as exemplified in EU’s continuous expansion, suggests that the process in global politics, whereby states mutually agree to cooperate and work together as regional blocs, will persist, despite the conflicting interests of states in international affairs.

References

European Union (2019) “European Commission – Overview” [Online]. Available at: https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodies/european-commission_en (Accessed: April 25, 2019).

Financial Times (2019) “Apple’s EU tax dispute explained,” August 30, 2016 [Online]. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/3e0172a0-6e1b-11e6-9ac1-1055824ca907 (Accessed: April 19, 2019).

Masters, J. (2023) “Ukraine: Conflict at the Crossroads of Europe and Russia” [Online] Council on Foreign Relations. Available at: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-crossroads-europe-and-russia (Accessed: August 3, 2023).

The Open University (2019a) “3 Global political actors” [Audio], DD211 Understanding politics: ideas and institutions in the modern world. Available at: https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=1302819&section=4 (Accessed: April 7, 2019).

The Open University (2019b) “6 Debates in global politics” [Audio], DD211 Understanding politics: ideas and institutions in the modern world. Available at: https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=1302819&section=7 (Accessed: April 14, 2019).

The Open University (2019c) “5 How to make use of IR perspectives” [Video], DD211 Understanding politics: ideas and institutions in the modern world. Available at: https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=1302819&section=6 (Accessed: April 14, 2019).

The Open University (2019d) “5 Historical development of the EU” [Online], DD211 Understanding politics: ideas and institutions in the modern world. Available at: https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=1302820&section=6 (Accessed: April 16, 2019).

The Open University (2019e) “1 Regionalism in global politics” [Online], DD211 Understanding politics: ideas and institutions in the modern world. Available at: https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=1302820&section=2 (Accessed: April 15, 2019).

Political Geography Now (2023) “Which Countries are in the European Union in 2023, Which Aren’t, and Which Want to Join” [Online]. Available at: https://www.polgeonow.com/search/label/european%20union (Accessed: August 3, 2023)

Wastnidge, E. (2015a) “The globalization of world politics” in Heffernan, R. and Wastnidge, E. (eds.) Understanding Politics: Ideas and Institutions in the Modern World 2, Milton Keynes, The Open University.

Wastnidge, E. (2015b) “The European Union” in Heffernan, R. and Wastnidge, E. (eds.) Understanding Politics: Ideas and Institutions in the Modern World 2, Milton Keynes, The Open University.

Hashtags: #Globalization #WorldPolitics #EuropeanUnion #Intergovernmentalism #Supranationalism