The document discusses the debate around whether states still matter in an era of globalization. It summarizes the arguments on both sides of the debate. While some argue that globalization has reduced states' powers over policies like taxes and unemployment, others maintain that states still play an important role in regulating economic globalization within their borders. The document also notes that theorists disagree on how to define and conceptualize globalization itself. Overall, it concludes that states continue to exercise autonomy and power through policies that protect citizens and ensure multinational corporations respect the sovereignty of nation-states.

1. Do states still matter in an era of globalization?
Introduction:
In endeavouring to gain an understanding about globalization and the
nation-state in this ‘modern-era’ a dichotomy of positions has always
arisen about the impact of globalization in the governance of a state. The
state is either recognised as the authority on governance, control and
implementation or it is regarded as an unimportant clog in the wheel of a
perfect order. Scholars from both sides of the divide have a continuous
ongoing conversation with regards to the functionality of a state or the
irrelevance of borders.
Theorists such as James Scott (1998), Etienne Balibar (1997), amongst
others, belong to a school of thought that argue that it is impossible to
reduce the state to a definition just encompassing a government, they
maintain that the state is a number of institutions brought together to
interact and as such the state can be referred to as the ‘state system’
(Miliband 1969).
Globalization according to Brady et.al (2001) can best be conceptualised
as a multi-dimensional process of international network formations. The
concept of globalization whilst not being a new theory continues to create
deep divisions for the theorists on both sides of the argument. To gain a
simple understanding of globalization, Alderson’s (2004) definition
maintains that globalisation is the flow of people, capital, information,
goods and services, and not a new social order with complex
connotations.
This essay will identify the important role played by the state in the
regulation of globalization, it will propose advantages as to why the state
cannot be side-lined and why the world order cannot be left governed by
global actors who have little or no socio-political allegiance. A good
example is the current scandal going on at the auto maker Volkswagen.
The challenges for states as they interact as a consequence of open
borders in the era of globalization will be identified and examined. The
emphatic rejoinder as put forward by Sassen (2006) about the relevance
of the nation-state will be used to counter the arguments of scholars such
as Trouilliot (2001) who asserts that globalization renders the state
irrelevant.
Oluwatoyin Okpaje

2. Globalization and the State
“[The state’s] powers over the price of money ---- tax rates, industrial
policy, the rate of unemployment, have been blown away” Economist
1995 cited in (Berger, 2000). The statement credited to the Economist
strongly suggests the power accorded to the State has largely been taken
away by the activities of globalisation, when policies, procedures or laws
over such issues as tax rates, industrial policy and the rate of
unemployment are to be decided. This is contrary to evidence as put
forward by sceptics such as (Bairoch 2000, Campbell 2004, Fligstein
2001, Gilpin 2001 and Held et.al 1999) in which they maintain that the
existence of globalization is overemphasised. Economic globalization as
conceptualised by (Brady, et al., 2007) is termed as international trade
and investment. It is the operation of economic exchange on an
international arena, where there is a flow of goods, services, people,
information and capital. It is largely impossible for this economic act to
replace a government’s authority and power. As an example despite the
might of Volkswagen as a global player, the government of Switzerland
was very quick to stop the sales of the faulty cars in their country as a
means of protecting its citizens and industrial policy.
Sassen (2006) emphasises that, the nation-state remains relevant, and
uneven claims of a sweeping “runaway world” (Giddens 2000) lack
empirical support. In the arguments put forward by Sassen and Giddens
the hard facts put forward do tend to support the narrative that
globalization is replacing the state as a new world order. Globalization
must be seen as a multi-dimensional process of international formation
(Brady, et al., 2007). The process should not be taken as a vague
‘buzzword’ but rather it should be regarded and treated as a tangible and
measurable concept. It should be differentiated from political ideologies
such as neoliberalism or Marxism. The effects of globalization should not
be confused or identified as a process or processes.
The non-agreement by theorists on the issue of globalization also creates
a reason why globalization cannot be said to be replacing nation-state.
Hirst and Thompson (1996) brought forth another perspective on the
issue of globalization. According to them, economies are largely
international rather than global. For an economy to be global they need to
be ‘subsumed and rearticulated into the system’ and this is not what they
argue is happening. In the last 20 decades, entities have remained
distinctively national despite the closer interaction through increases in
mobility, capital transfer, trade and foreign investment. The increased
interactions can be seen as entities operating as multi-nationals rather
Oluwatoyin Okpaje

3. than transnational. A lot of the multi-nationals despite their operations at
a multi-national arena still largely have a national identity e.g. Facebook
and Apple despite having a big operating presence in Europe still identify
strongly as an American multi-national which operates on an international
forum guided by American rules and regulation on tax, values and
identity. Moreover, the interactions is also not new and has been
happening for decades. Berger (2000) pointed to the fact that as far back
as 1913 most advanced countries were operating the same comparable
levels as today in both capital and labour mobility across national
boundaries. Boundaries have always been there and would continue to be
there with all operators recognising the sovereignty and authority of the
host country; again using the operations of Apple and Facebook in Ireland
especially as an example.
‘Through the isolation of socioeconomic conflicts, notably class
divisions, the state not only guarantees its own relative autonomy ‘viz a
viz’ dominant classes but also produces atomized, individualized citizens’
(Trouillot, 2001). The state regulates itself and its interaction on global
territory by using a system of class division. As argued by Trouillot,
despite its supposed dominance, globalization does not create a world
where you can move around from one state to the other without
encountering checks to identify your nationality. In this way the state and
its agents still maintain their authority and power. The state has to give
you the enablement for any multinational to be able to do business in
their part of the globe despite whatever level of authority the
multinational has on the economic/global platform. In this way, amongst
others, the state ensures its relevance and power is secured and
guaranteed.
Conclusion
This essay aimed to highlight the arguments of theorists about the
importance of a State in the globalization process. The important roles
which a state plays and the advantages gained by the citizens as a result
of a strong state role was also presented. In the era of globalization, the
state acts as a check on the activities of globalizers, enacts and
promulgates policies which ensures the citizens or state is not impacted
negatively. The power given to the politicians by the citizens of a state
makes it imperative that they ensure they work towards the progress of
the state entity.
Oluwatoyin Okpaje