School of Politics
and Sociology
COURSEWORK COVER SHEET
Student Number: 12311550
Programme of Study: MSc Global Politics
Title of Course Unit: Politics of Globalization
Core  Option 
Essay 1  Essay 2 
(Please tick as appropriate)
Essay Title: Is globalization a chance or a threat for democracy?
Word Count: 2,722
For official use only
Mark: Mark:
Tutor signature: Tutor signature:
Date: Date:

12311550
Is globalization a chance or a threat for democracy?
In 1999, Amartya Sen argued that the most important thing which had happened in the
20th century was the emergence of democracy as a universal value. He pointed out that
“while democracy is not yet universally practiced, nor indeed uniformly accepted, in the
general climate of world opinion, democratic governance has now achieved the status
of being taken to be generally right. The ball is very much in the court of those who
want to rubbish democracy to provide justification for that rejection.” [page no?]
At the same time, much the same could be said of the main premises of globalization:
although unevenly distributed around the globe and much contested, the idea that
globalization is a force that is affecting our lives is also generally accepted to be correct.
Are these two major processes compatible? This essay will put forward the argument
that globalization provides opportunities for the spread of democratic institutions at the
state level, not least because this is increasingly taking place across diverse countries,
regions and cultures in part due to global influences [Awkward. Globalization is an
opportunity for democracy because it is omnipresent?]. However, at the same time,
globalization threatens the deepening of democracy both from within states and from
outside. This essay will look at how and why democratic institutions have emerged
across the world and will make the case that these may constitute merely formal rather
than genuinely substantive democracy for two reasons. [This last sentence may be
problematic. If you are looking at how and why certain democratic forms are emerging
then you’re getting caught up in distinctions within the democratic paradigm. Whether

12311550
globalization is at least partially causal then seems to be a secondary affair instead of
the central concern of the essay. You need to give more detailed signposting at this
point. However, your style is clear and easy to read. ]
Firstly, the benefits of these global influences are often distorted in favour of traditional
elites, therefore enhancing their ability to hold onto power, and may not adequately
provide for the inclusion of marginalized groups.[True, now give an example, even if
you will elaborate later on] Secondly, the forces of globalization are in the process of
eroding the relevance of these state-based institutions as citizens find their interests and
livelihoods increasingly affected and even controlled by forces and agents outside of the
control of the states in which they reside. [Example?]
It is important to clarify what is meant by democracy in the context of this essay.
Schmitter and Karl (1991 page no?) describe modern democracy as “a system of
governance in which rulers are held accountable for their actions in the public realm by
citizens, acting indirectly through the competition and cooperation of their elected
representatives.” [Always a good move to define your terms early]They also go on to
describe the key role played by organized groups, in addition to elected representatives,
in aggregating and representing the interests of citizens, particularly minority groups
who are not well represented by majority rule, recognizing that elections alone are not
adequate for holding governments to account.
This essay draws a distinction between these institutions of democracy – the elections
and processes that in theory allow citizens to hold their rulers to account, as described

12311550
by Schmitter and Karl – and the political equality which results from citizens’ ability to
influence decisions that affect their lives and from responsiveness of political
institutions to their demands (Kaldor and Vejvoda, 2002, p162). It asserts that the
existence of the former may qualify a state as a democracy in an institutional sense;
they may not necessarily result in the latter, particularly with respect to minority
groups. For clarity, the term ‘substantive democracy’ shall be used to refer to the latter
situation. [Good point, very clear.]
How we define globalization is also a key issue. This is a contentious matter: Hirst and
Thompson (2000) argue that the evidence does not support the popular conception of
globalization and warn against the threat that this conception holds for social policies,
while others point out (Held, 1997), on the other hand, that trade as a percentage of
GDP has increased significantly from the levels at the beginning of the last century.
[You need to do a little more work in this paragraph for the reader and also to display
you understand the significance of increased international trade and how this is
connected to social policy.]
Here, globalization is conceived as a series of processes which are changing the nature
of the international sphere, leading to more interconnectedness between states. Some
give a particular focus to the economic elements of these processes (Holden, 2000), but
for the purposes of this essay, the intensification of social and political relations and the
role of technology in facilitating the ‘speeding up’ of long distance interactions,
increasingly enmeshing the global and the local (Held & McGrew, 2007), is also

12311550
important. [You set out, I think, to define globalization but neglected to. Rather, you
told me it was a phenomenon conceived in broad terms.]
Just as Amartya Sen asserted that democracy is now taken to be “generally right”, Mary
Kaldor, in her contribution to the recent book ‘Progressive Foreign Policy’ points out
that “now, nearly everyone is in favour of ‘democracy promotion’” (2007). Indeed,
democracy does appear to be spreading, be this through direct encouragement or
through the creeping of democratic norms: of the 98 countries surveyed by the last
Global Democracy Ranking (Campbell and Pölzlbauer, 2008), only 14 became less
democratic over the preceding two years. [Now that you’re inferring that globalization
takes different specific forms, it seems all the more important to have defined them
previously. If, for example, you define globalization as processes that bring about
interconnectedness or similarity that are more intensive and extensive than before, then
pointing out the diffusion of norms may not be a sufficient quality to rank as
globalization.]
Burnell (2006) notes the influence of a range of international factors on democratisation
(or the adoption of democratic institutions), many of which, for poor countries,
essentially constitute imposition from outside. The conditionalities attached to much
financial support and development aid require recipients to take steps towards
introducing democratic institutions such as elections, protection of human rights,
initiatives to strengthen civil society and so on, which can be interpreted as either
supporting or coercive (Baylies, 1995).

12311550
Membership of international organizations has also been shown to encourage processes
of democratization in new or aspiring member states, and with the proliferation of
international organizations, more opportunities for this incentive are provided. For
example, the enlargement of NATO contributed to democratizing trends in Poland,
particularly with regard to democratic control of the armed forces, and the other new
member states which joined in the 1990s (Epstein, 2005). EU membership has also
consolidated democracy in states in both southern and central Europe (Solana, 2005).
[This paragraph is more interesting, in the sense that you’re attempting to show a
deepening of similarities in democratic form.]
There are also multiple theories on the advance of the internet and other
communications technologies as a catalyst for democratization. Kedzie (cited in Best
and Wade, 2006) argues that the globalization of markets and their increasing reliance
on communications technologies forces undemocratic regimes to keep their countries
communications borders open, allowing not only commercial information but also
information on democracy to seep through. Best and Wade (2006) also cite research
arguing that the internet can also provide information allowing citizens to make more
informed choices, and can teach people how to organize effectively for change. [The
mere spread of information does not mean that it will result in similarity in actions or in
understanding. There may be indifference, hybridization or resistance to the
information being spread. But you are building you case up.]
So we can see that there is much that is positive about the effects of processes of
globalization, both in their ability to encourage the spread of democratic institutions

12311550
into developing countries, and to increase the quality of the democracy through the
growth of foreign education [that’s arguable]and the catalyst effect of the increase in
media and communications in bringing peripheral groups into the democratic process
(Bhagwati, 1997). However, there are reasons for concern.
Firstly, the benefits of globalization accrue unequally, both in the sense that developed
states benefit more than developing ones, but also in the sense that within states, elites
benefit more than marginal groups. This is particularly the case with regard to the
proliferation of technology, and access to education and information via these
technologies: only a small percentage of the developing world’s population uses the
internet, and these are likely to be elites who would be naturally reluctant to see their
influence wane through increased participation of currently marginalized groups
(Kalathil and Boas, 2003, cited in Best and Wade, 2006).
Secondly, especially where democratic institutions have appeared through a process of
outside intervention and financial encouragement, the a? strong corresponding civil
society may not appear alongside them. Mary Kaldor (2007) even suggests that the
influxes of money may lead to the formation of artificial NGOs and may crowd out
genuine grass-roots movements. Therefore, while citizens may find that they have the
opportunity to vote in elections for the first time, the other processes by which
governments can be held to account, and through which the state might progress to a
situation where citizens have equality of opportunity to influence decisions that might
affect their lives, may be lacking. [Good point. This implies that democracy promotion
is a more complex process than often assumed.]

12311550
Claude Ake (1997) argues that this “trivialisation of democracy”, or in other words, the
reduction of the idea of democracy to crude multiparty elections in the absence of more
rigorous demands, has taken hold as democracy as a system of governance has
flourished. The danger of this process is that leaders of autocratic regimes – Ake
mentions Arap Moi of Kenya and Paul Biya of Cameroon – may be able to claim
democratic legitimacy without being actually held to account by the people, because
other necessary elements of substantive democracy are not in place. [I like the way you
support your argument here.]
However, while democratic processes, for better or worse, proliferate in developing
states, all nation states, including those in the Western world, are already under pressure
from globalizing forces which erode the ability of any state-based democratic processes
to provide for substantive democracy. [Very good.]
Firstly, the emergence and strengthening of global communities, aided by improved
communications technologies, and the increasing porosity of borders leads to arguments
that the nation state is less relevant as the demarcation of a ‘community of fate’ (Held,
1997) for which representative democracy might provide the means to some control
over its destiny. This holds true in multiple domains: in economic spheres, businesses
are operating in increasingly global markets with competitors who may not be subject
to the same regulations – minimum wages, for example – as they are. City-dwellers
may identify more closely with other urbanites than with rural populations with whom
they share nationality. Affiliation to a cause or belief system may also be more

12311550
important in determining which community people belong to than where they live.
Pollution, global warming and other environmental issues are not border-bound. As
citizens’ interests become increasingly enmeshed with people and events across the
globe, decisions are often made “in distant places, often anonymously, by agents and
forces we can hardly understand much less control” (Ake, 1996). Therefore, although
citizens may appeal to their elected representatives on issues such as these, their
representatives may be constrained in their ability to take action because causal factors
fall outside of their remit. It is also often the case that policy decisions made by states,
whether unilaterally or as part of multilateral agreements, affect citizens of other states
who have no opportunity to influence the process.
The existence of these overlapping constituencies and webs of interests, actions, causes
and effects, has led to the creation of new international and subnational institutions, all
of which remove powers from the state itself, constraining its ability to act on behalf of
its citizens. The need for multilateral action on issues including the environment, health
and peace, amongst many others, has led to the transcendence of nation-states by
international and supranational bodies such as the UN and, in Europe, the European
Union. On the other hand, the strengthening of subnational groups – particularly
inhabitants of regions in search of more autonomy who are able to draw on resources
from elsewhere to further their causes at the national level – are pulling the state in the
other direction, towards the devolution of powers to regional assemblies.
It is also the case that globalization, specifically the increased investment flows which
are one of the key indicators of globalization, constrain the state’s ability to adopt

12311550
certain policies, because of the increased potential associated cost. Jagdish Bhagwati
(1997) recounts the “socialism in one state” dilemma, where if only one state adopts
socialist policies, the outflows of capital and people would be at such an enormous
economic cost to the state as to make the option unviable. Susan Strange (1996) also
argues that the integration of national economies and financial markets into a global
market economy means that states’ abilities to manage their national economies are
weakened. Therefore, states, whether their democratic processes are effective or not,
have to take more than the preferences and interests of their citizens into account when
making policy: if their preferred policy option would put the state at a disadvantage in
the international arena, then they may have to reject it.
It is of course necessary to take a more nuanced look at these arguments: critics argue
that the state has merely changed its role to a more permissive one, and adapted the way
that it operates in the system (Dombrowski, cited in Strange, 1998), and that the risks of
capital flight and consequent policy constraints are exaggerated (Garrett, 1998). Of
course, the constraints are dependent on many other factors – smaller developing
countries are likely to find these more of consequence than large developed Western
states. On the other hand, the cost of reversal of decisions such as membership of the
European Union, or NAFTA, even for developed countries, would be so high as to
make these virtually inconceivable. In this respect, the supposed ‘freedom’ is a fallacy.
Does globalization give democracy a chance? In some respects, it does. The growing
interdependence of states and proliferation of democracy-promoting international
institutions, coupled with the spread of information resulting from growing

12311550
opportunities for people to make connections outside of their immediate geographical
area, make democratization hard to resist for developing countries.
However, we can also respond with a positive to the question ‘is democracy threatened
by globalization?’ Here, we are not talking about elections. Rather we are talking about
substantive democracy, which allows citizens to influence decisions which affect them.
There are two main challenges. The first of which refers to democracy within states:
while democratic institutions and procedures may appear, it is far from clear that
globalization increases the influence of marginalized communities. In fact, there is a
risk that existing elites may be reinforced.
Secondly, current conceptions of democracy are based on state-shaped geographical
territories, and while in some respects states are still able to respond to the preferences
of citizens, there are globalizing forces at work which cut through the boundaries of
states, thereby creating democratic deficits and thereby eroding substantive democracy.
These are more significant for emerging democracies and developing states, but they
also affect developed Western states to some extent.

12311550
Bibliography
1. Ake, Claude (1997) Dangerous Liaisons: the interface of globalization and
democracy. In Hadenius, ed. (1997) Democracy’s victory and crisis.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
2. Baylies, Carolyn (1995) ‘Political Conditionality’ and Democratisation. Review
of African Political Economy, 22 (65) pp.321-337
3. Best, Michael L. and Wade, Keegan W. (2005) The Internet and Democracy:
Global Catalyst or Democratic Dud? Berkman Center Research Publication No.
2005-12. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=870080 [Accessed
06/12/08]
4. Bhagwati, Jagdish (1997) Globalization, sovereignty and democracy. In
Hadenius, ed. (1997) Democracy’s victory and crisis. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
5. Dahl, Robert (1982) Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy. New Haven: Yale
University Press, pp.11
6. Dahl, Robert (2000) On Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press
7. Epstein, Rachel A. (2005) Nato Enlargement and the Spread of Democracy:
Evidence and Expectations. Security Studies, 14 (1), pp.63-105. Available at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09636410591002509 [Accessed 06/12/08]
8. Held, David (1997) Democracy and Globalization. Global Governance, 3 (3),
pp.251-267
9. Held, David and McGrew, Anthony (1998) The End of the Old Order?
Globalization and the Prospects for World Order. British International Studies
Association
10. Held, David and McGrew, Anthony (2007) Globalization/ Anti-globalization.
Cambridge: Polity Press
11. Holden, Barry (2000) Global Democracy: Key Debates. London: Routledge
12. Garrett, Geoffrey (1998) Global Markets and National Politics. In Held, David,
ed. (2003) The Global Transformations Reader: An Introduction to the
Globalization Debate. Cambridge: Polity Press
13. Kaldor, Mary and Vejvoda, Ivan (2002) Democratization in Central and
Eastern Europe. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
14. Kaldor, Mary (2007) Deepening Democracy. In Held, David and Mepham,
David, ed.s (2007) Progressive Foreign Policy: New Directions for the UK
Cambridge: Polity Press
15. Campbell, David F. J. and Pölzlbauer, Georg (2008). The Democracy Ranking
2008 of the Quality of Democracy: Method and Ranking Outcome. Vienna:

12311550
Democracy Ranking. Available at
http://www.democracyranking.org/downloads/method_ranking_outcome_2008_
A4.pdf [Accessed 05/12/08]
16. Scholte, Jan Aart (2005) Globalization: A Critical Introduction. Basingstoke:
Palgrave
17. Sen, Amartya, (1999) Democracy as a Universal Value Journal of Democracy
10 (3) pp.3-17. Available at http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/jod/v010/10.3sen.html
[Accessed 05/12/08]
18. Strange, Susan (1996) The Declining Authority of States. In Held, David (ed.)
(2003) The Global Transformations Reader: An Introduction to the
Globalization Debate. Cambridge: Polity Press
19. Strange, Susan (1998) What Theory? The Theory in Mad Money. CSGR
Working Paper No. 18/98. Available at
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/csgr/research/workingpapers/1998/wp1898.
pdf [Accessed 05/12/08]
20. Schmitter, Philippe C. and Karl, Terry Lynn (2001) What Democracy is… and
is not Journal of Democracy 2 (3)
21. Solana, Javier (2005) Europe's leading role in the spread of democracy
Financial Times (London, England) March 14. Available at Nexis UK.
[Try to keep a bibliography in alphabetical order]
Conceive of democracy as processual and multifaceted.
Dear Student,
This was a rather ambitious approach to the essay question. You grasped fully that
democracy has become a popular form across the globe at a time when it itself is being
threatened and attempted to show this tension. Your style is clear and easy to read.
While you should NEVER leave page numbers out, once that is overlooked, it is
evidentthat a considerable amount of library work has been done, although more from
the specific reading list given to you this year would have helped your argument.
My reservations are these. The definition you gave of democracy was too simplistic
for what you attempted to do with it later. You were attempting to show that
democracy could be multifaceted as well as processual while your definition merely
alluded to the existence of superficial forms as opposed to more pervasive forms within
societies.
You failed to give any definition of globalization and therefore it became easy to place
anything within that category: norm diffusion, the actions of an agent such as the IMF
in a number of countries…. It would have been better to be explicit about how each
point you brought up fitted into a specific view(s) of globalization.

12311550
The essay did strengthen towards the end when you were elaborating on the ways that
state democracy is being undermined.
You need to keep your bibliography alphabetical and rethink such a large number of
short paragraphs. While I’m an advocate of the short paragraph, yours are a little too
short and give the essay a somewhat choppy feel.
A good solid piece of work. Well done.
LM 21/12/08 Mark: 63%
Birkbeck College
School of Politics & Sociology
MSc/MRes marksheet
12311550
Student number: Date:
8/12/08
Course: PoG
Essay No: 1
Topic: 7
Structure
Introduction good x No or weak introduction
Develops logically x Rambles
Conclusion sums up & answers x Drifts off
Legible/fluent x Unclear
Substance
Analytical x Descriptive
Accurate x Questionable
Transparent x Opaque
Independent x Uncritical
Relevant x Answers different question
Answering the question: The question was addressed from a broad perspective.
Structure: Well laid out in terms of flow of logic.
Conceptual clarity: For the approach that was taken, definitions or assumptions made
needed to be more explicit and nuanced.
Analytic content: This was satisfactory.
Evidence and examples: More specific examples from ‘real life’ could have been deployed.
Those that were included were very effective.

12311550
Literature: Very broad range of reading evident.
Style and presentation: Clear throughout. Paragraph length could be increased to
reduce choppiness.
Marked by Lorraine Macmillan. Mark: 63%