Department of Education

Region VI– Western Visayas

Schools Division of Iloilo
BUGA NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
Buga, Leon, Iloilo

SUBJECT: PHILIPPINE POLITICS AND

GOVERNANCE
Theories on the Origin of the State:
TOPIC: STATES, NATIONS AND 1. Divine Right Theory- it posits the view that the
GLOBAL IZATION state is a creation of God.
2. Patriarchal Theory- it posits the view that the
The Role of the State state originates from the family to a tribe, a clan
A state is a community of persons more or less and later on, transforming into a state.
numerous, occupying a definite portion of territory, 3. Force Theory- it posits the view that a group of
free from external control and having a warriors imposed their will and formed a state.
government to which the inhabitants render 4. Social Contract Theory- it posits the view that
habitual obedience (De Leon, 2009). The four the state was formed due to agreements or
elements of the state are people, territory, contracts between the government and the
government, and sovereignty. governed.
5. Economic Theory- it posits the view that the
People refers to the inhabitants living within the state arose out of the needs of the people which
state. There is no specific number of persons to be bounded them together to form a state.
considered a state but they must be numerous
enough for self-defense and must consist of male The Basis of a Nation
and female. The biggest state in terms of people is The term “nation” (Cruz, 1999), strictly
the People’s Republic of China while the smallest speaking as formed from its etymology “nasci” which
is the Vatican, considered as a state within a state. means to be born. It implies a relation of birth or origin
and indicates a common race, commonly characterized
Territory refers to the physical attributes of the by a community of language and customs. The nation is
state in terms of boundaries and size of land. The a racial or ethnic concept while the state is a legal
land must be big enough to support the needs of the concept.
people e.g can be planted with crops and other The Difference between State and Nation
edible plants. The biggest state in terms of territory 1. Difference in the elements:
is Russia while the smallest is again in Vatican. The state has essentially four elements –population,
Government refers to the aggregate of authority territory, government, and sovereignty. In the
which governs society. It comes from the Latin absence of even one element, a state cannot really be
considered a State on the other hand, a nation is a group
word gubernaculum which literally means
of people who have a strong sense of unity and common
“rudder”, the steering wheel of a ship. Thus, the consciousness.
function of the government is to guide the state
towards its political and economic destination in The elements of common territory, common race,
the same way that the rudder guides the ship common religion, common language, common
towards its course. history, common culture and common political
aspirations help the formation of a nation, and yet none
Sovereignty refers to the power of the state to of these is an absolutely essential element. The
chart its own destiny without the interference of elements which characterize a nation keep on evolving
other states. There are two kinds of sovereignty: as time goes by.
external and internal. External sovereignty means 2. State is a Political Organization while Nation is a
the state cannot be dictated by other states as social, cultural, psychological, emotional and
regards its internal affairs while internal political unity:
sovereignty is the coercive power of the state to be
obeyed by its citizens. The state is a political organization which satisfies the
security and welfare needs of its people. It is concerned
with external human actions. It is a legal entity. On the A State can be created with the conscious endeavors of
other hand, a nation is a united unit of population which the people. Physical elements play an important role in
is full of emotional, spiritual, and psychological bonds. the birth of State. A nation on the other hand, is a unity
A nation has business with the physical needs of the of the people which emerges slowly and steadily. No
people. special efforts go into the making of a nation.
3. Territory is essential for the State but not for a 9. The State uses police power (force) for preserving
Nation: its unity and integrity, the Nation is bound by strong
cultural and historical links:
It is essential for each State to possess a fixed territory.
It is the physical element of the State. State is a The state exercises police power. Those who dare to
territorial entity. But for a Nation territory is not an disobey it are punished. A nation does not have police
essential requirement, a nation can exist even without power or force or coercive power rather, it is backed by
a fixed territory. For example, the Palestinians were a moral and traditional power. A nation survives on the
nation even though they had no fixed territory of their power of sense of unity of the people. A nation appeals,
own. the State orders; a nation persuades, a state coerces; and
a nation boycotts, the state punishes.
4. Sovereignty is essential for State but not for
Nation: State and nation do not have the same boundaries, and
yet there is a tendency for a nation and state to be a one
Sovereignty is an essential element of the State. In the entity. Most of the nation’s today stand organized into
absence of sovereignty, the State loses its existence. It different states and are multinational states. The modern
is the element of sovereignty which makes the state state is called a nation-state because all the
different from all other associations of the people. It is (nationalities) living in one state area integrated into
not essential for a nation to possess sovereignty. one nation.
However, each nation always aspires to be sovereign
and independent of the control of every other nation. 10. A single nation can consist of many states:
5. Nation can be bigger in Scope than the State: There can be one nation comprising of many states. A
single nation may cut among many states specially if
The State is limited to a fixed territory. Its boundaries such nation merely migrated to their neighboring states
can increase or decrease but the process of change is and became the dominant population. An example of
always very complex. However a nation may or may this is the Arab nation which consists of many Middle
not remain within the bounds of a fixed territory. East states like Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya and
Nation is a community based on common ethnicity, Yemen to name a few.
history and traditions and aspirations. Obviously its
boundaries can easily extend beyond the boundaries of The State and Globalization
the State.
The term globalization involves three different aspects
6. There can be two or more Nationalities living in in the world economy. And none are more of profound
one State: relevance than that of Ngaire Woods (2001) who
categorized them into:
They can be two or more than two nations with a single
State. The United States of America for example is an 1. Internationalization which is the increase in
amalgamation of nations. Most of the modern states are economic transactions across borders.
multinational states. 2. Technological Revolution- the effect of new
electronic gadgets that allow global operation
7. Nation is more stable than State: without regard for location, distance and borders.
A nation is more stable than the state. When 3. Liberalization which refers to the politics
sovereignty ends, the State dies, but not the nation. A undertaken by states which makes globalization
nation can survive even without sovereignty. For possible.
example, after their defeat in the World War II, both Some scholars would focus on technology while others
Germany and Japan lost their sovereign statuses and like Martin Wolf (2001) consider policy as the
outside powers began to control them. They ceased to determining factor on the extent and pace of
exist as States but they continued to live as nations. international economic integration.
8. A state can be created while a Nation is always the This was brought about when large parts of the
result of evolution: globe decided to abandon economic policies of self-
imposed isolation from international commerce (Brink
Lindsey, 2000). This may have been due to the failure transactions. This would be a world where the costs
of other economic movements like the Fordist mass of transport and communications were zero and the
modes of production and the Keynesian principle of barriers created by differing national jurisdiction
government intervention in trade and commerce in the had vanished. These distinctions include more rapid
1970s. communications, market liberalization, and global
integration of the production of goods and services
Accordingly,” unhindered movement of capital, (Martin Wolf, 2001). Indeed, it is a world where
goods and services across national frontiers leads to an state borders no longer matter, state identities are
optimal and efficient allocation of scarce resources no longer significant and global differences had
(Robert Went, 2000). Thus, without governments disappeared.
imposing limitations and strict rules and regulations,
resources are produced more efficiently, traded with The Positive View
greater efficacy and consumed by more people in the
world. While some experts contend that globalization had
eroded the international role of states, others point out
The economic and political balance is no longer focus “the role of powerful states in setting the rules of the
on the state but on international agencies and entitles new international order and their influence over less
such as multinational corporations and credit powerful states” (Woods, 2001). Thus, such contention
institutions. may have only some application on states of lesser
significance but cannot be given weight with regard to
Mark Berger (2001) further emphasizes that there is dominant states.
a shift in power from nation-states to increasingly
mobile types of capital and international financial It is on issues of economic policy, where wealthier and
institutions and organizations. For him, this more powerful countries are less constrained by
technological changes have “dramatically altered globalization (2001). They can afford not to go with the
production processes and increased the speed and general trend as they can withstand economic instability
scope with which information and ideas, as well as and have the ability to absorb disturbances that go with
capital, move around the globe”. the volatile markets.
Indeed, it seems that states no longer enjoy the status On the other hand, some critics of globalization blame
and stature that they once enjoyed centuries ago; they the distortion and vitality of markets and social
seem to have vanished on the foreground, allowing development on free markets gone haywire; when in
other entities to take their place and take center stage. fact, however, these problems are due to the formidable
presence of anti-market policies and institutions
As Ngaire Woods (2001) reiterates, globalization is (Lindsey, 2000).
“increasing interdependence among states,
increasing global interconnectedness and the And indeed, the role of states is not eroding, states and
capacity of states to influence others” which greatly governments still have a very important and substantial
needs some consideration because it would further role to play in a successful economy (Woods, 2001).
enhance the strengths of stronger states while States provide a conductive atmosphere for business by
further diminishing the clout of weaker ones. As a eradicating security concerns and offering incentives
result, the economic gap between states could e.g. tax holidays and exemptions. They implement
further expand and tilt the balance of power which economic policies and provide facilities such as
had already been eroded by the end of the Cold infrastructure, transportation and communication
War. capabilities.
Nevertheless, globalization is not the result of This perspective is contrary to the view of the Liberals
gradual and spontaneous emancipation of the who point to the increasing irrelevance of national
economic sphere from government control. On the borders in the conduct and organization of economic
contrary, it is the result of conscious and sometimes activity. Such Liberals focus on the growth of free
violent state intervention by advanced capitalist trade, the capacity of transnational corporations to
states (Burchill, 2001). By imposing their will on escape political regulation and national legal
states in the periphery, to open up their markets and jurisdictions and the liberation of capital from national
adopt liberal policies or face sanctions and financial and territorial constraints”. (Scott Burchill, 2001)
assistance disapproval, the global financial setting
became liberalized Thus, while for them globalization had liberated the
power of financial markets from the authority of the
A globalized economy is one in which neither over-arching state (2001) and concludes that the state is
distance nor national borders impede economic in decline; democracy is spreading and international
commerce is almost unfettered, Realists cite a number possibly only after the stagflation of the 1970’s
of important powers retained by the state despite discredited the “mixed economy” and the
globalization including monopoly control of weapons macroeconomic policies (2000).
of war and their legitimate use; and the sole right to tax
its citizens According to Mark Berger (2001), the nation-states
always had serious limitations as an instrument of
Only the nation-states can still command the political liberation and progress. Its monolithic character has
allegiances of its citizens or adjudicate in disputes made it incapable of adapting to the current needs of the
between them. And it is only the nation-state which has times. It is no longer able to respond to the onset of
the exclusive authority to bind the whole community to globalization that threatens to undermine even its very
international law. own existence. Its failures maybe traced to its rigid
structure, limited views and bias undertakings.
For while technology is supposed to make globalization
inevitable it also makes increased surveillance by the The negative effects of globalization according to Went
state, particularly over people, easier than it would have (2000) are dominant dictatorship of the markets, greater
been a century ago (Wolf, 2001). Thus it expands the social inequality; deterioration of wages, working
power of states to counter the flow of information on conditions and social security, ecological destruction
people and gives them a better control on the activities and deterioration and undermining of democracy. These
of individuals thereby enhancing their power and are the effects of the bargaining table in global
relevance. negotiations.
Martin Wolf further explains that globalization This was aptly illustrated in the globalization of the
makes states necessary by contending that: Southeast Asian crisis which shock protagonists of free
trade and financial liberalization who had presented the
First, the ability of a society to take development of these Asian economies as the ultimate
advantage of the opportunities offered by proof that such policies work (Went, 2000).
international economic integration depends on the
quality of public good such as property rights, an While opponents of globalization blame the recent
honest civil service, personal security and basic financial crises in Asia and Latin America on
education which are offered by states. unregulated capital movements which is partly true, the
Second, it is the state which normally defines real cause is when governments abuse their access to
identity and people would naturally want to retain international capital markets by adhering to
their unique individual traits and culture rather unsustainable monetary policies (Lindsey, 2000). States
than be absorb in the overflowing trend of global must therefore learn to go with the tide so to speak and
effects. attune their policies to the needs of the globalized
And Finally, International governance rests world.
on the ability of individual states to provide and
guarantee stability. The bedrock of international In the final analysis, nation-states could lose direct
order is the territorial state with its monopoly on control over the value of their currencies and the
coercive power within its jurisdiction movements of capital around the world (Burchill, 2011)
The Negative View if they fail to adapt to the challenges brought about by
globalization.
While some scholars believe that globalization is
nothing new and that it has not affected the authority of For Woods (2001), governments and states are losing
states, “other IPE critics posit the view that their capacity to control economic interactions because
globalization is dramatically diminishing the role of the quantity and rapidity of flows make it more difficult
states” (Woods, 2001). They contended that states have for governments to regulate trade, investments or
become obsolete in the face of the growing tendencies capital.
of states to adopt policies that liberalize their With the liberation of the unregulated capital liberated
economies. by the collapse of the Bretton Woods System in early
These dramatic changes that have swept the communist 1970’s, this resulted in the increase in the power of
world and the Third World countries have been driven transnational capital and the diminution of national
primarily by the recognition on the part of national economic sovereignty (Burchill, 2001). And indeed,
leaders that their state-dominated systems had failed globalization has certainly weakened the authority of
(Lindsey, 2000). This failure resulted in a wave of nation-states.
economic reforms e.g. tax cuts and privatizations not Prepared by: GROUP 3
only in these countries but also in industrialized Marlie Camano
democracies. However, much of these changes become
 Jesebelle Cajulao
Jodelyn Mae S. Cangrejo
Kyle Camarino
Ace Gezer Capilarta