Sovereign State in a Globalised World
The main viewpoints of globalization: globalists, sceptics, and
transformationalists
Globalization has sparked a big debate among scholars about how much it changes countries. Three main
camps have formed: globalists (or hyperglobalists), sceptics, and transformationalists. Each group has
a different view of how “globalized” our world really is, and what this means for nation-states.
• Globalists (Hyperglobalists) argue that globalization is a fundamental, sweeping change. They
believe the world is becoming so interconnected that national borders matter less. In this view, a
single global economy and international institutions start to replace old state powers. For example,
hyperglobalists claim governments will “eventually be replaced by institutions of global governance”
and that people will feel more loyalty to global rules than to their own country 1 . They point to
thousands of international organizations (like the WTO, IMF, United Nations) and say these bodies
pool power across borders. Held and McGrew, well-known globalists, talk about a “fragmented
policy-making arena” where sovereignty (state power) is increasingly shared. They say the link
between territory and power is breaking: now there are “multiple layers of governance ‘within and
across’ political boundaries”. For instance, the European Union is often cited: member states have
pooled sovereignty in trade and environmental policy. In short, globalists see globalization as a
powerful force that erodes national autonomy and creates a new world of cross-border rules and
institutions.
• Sceptics (or “traditionalists”) take the opposite view. They argue that talk of globalization is
overblown. Sceptics point out that most economic activity still happens within countries, and that
states retain their core powers. For example, Hirst and Thompson (1999) noted that even in recent
times, about 80% of trade happens within national borders 2 . Sceptics argue today’s global flows
of trade and capital are not larger than in the late 19th century (before World War I), when the world
was also very connected. They say that nations like Europe, North America and East Asia form
powerful trade blocs, and that these “regionalizations” show national governments remain strong
3 . Sceptics also stress that governments still set taxes, run militaries, and control social services –
things globalization hasn’t taken away. Michael Mann, a sceptic scholar, comments that nation-states
are still “obdurate networks” providing the rules capitalism needs 2 . In practice, sceptics see
globalization as an ongoing process, but one that states can control. They believe states remain the
key actors, and that globalization is not an entirely new phenomenon but just part of long historical
trends (like trade growth and migration). For them, the idea of an all-powerful global economy
hiding national interests is a “myth” – it often reflects the interests of powerful countries. 3 2
• Transformationalists take a middle ground. They agree globalization is real and significant, but
they do not see it as all-powerful or one-way. Transformationalists like Held and McGrew themselves
often use this term. They argue that globalization changes things unpredictably. Instead of saying
globalization will erase nations (like globalists) or barely matters (like sceptics), they say it creates a
1
new mix of old and new patterns. For example, transformationalists note that globalization has
made the local and global more intertwined – “no clear distinction between the global and the local”
anymore 4 . They agree that many aspects of society are evolving together (economic,
technological, cultural, environmental flows) into a single global system 4 . But unlike globalists,
transformationalists do not claim this process must continue smoothly or reach a final stage. They
point out crises and contradictions will shape globalization. They say it is a “long-term historical
process” full of surprises 5 . For example, unlike sceptics, they think today’s globalization is
historically unprecedented (covering technology, economy, culture all at once) 4 . But unlike
hyperglobalists, they refuse to predict that nation-states will disappear or that globalization is a
finished project. Instead, they emphasize complexity: globalization might produce new conflicts as
well as cooperation, and its future is uncertain 5 .
In summary, globalists see globalization as sweeping and transformative; sceptics see it as limited and
often exaggerated; transformationalists see it as significant but unpredictable. Most scholars agree that
reality lies in between the extremes. Globalization has connected the world more than ever, but states still
have power. Today’s consensus is that sovereignty is being shared and stretched, not simply erased 6 . In
practice, governments now operate in a crowded landscape of international networks and rules, even as
national identity and local politics remain important.
The shift from the nation-state to the market due to globalization
A key question about globalization is whether it has shifted power and initiative away from governments and
towards markets. This is often called the “shift from the state to the market.” Since the 1980s, many
governments have indeed loosened direct control over their economies in favor of market forces. A good
summary from the course notes is: “many states liberalized their economies (deregulation, privatization)
and reduced direct economic management… a ‘shift to market’ driven by neoliberal ideology and external
pressures”. In other words, countries moved from state-led economic models (with high taxes, trade
barriers, and state-owned businesses) to market-led models (with free trade, open markets, and private
enterprise). This shift happened for a few reasons and took several forms:
• Neoliberal Reforms and the Washington Consensus: From the 1980s onward, the dominant
economic policy among many Western countries and international institutions was neoliberalism – a
belief in free markets and small government. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank
championed what became known as the Washington Consensus: policies of fiscal austerity (cutting
government spending), deregulation (loosening rules for businesses), open markets (lowering tariffs
and trade barriers), and privatization (selling state-owned companies to private owners). As the
notes say, “since the 1980s many governments pursued liberalisation and privatisation under the
banner of globalisation” 7 . Powerful countries, especially the U.S., pushed these ideas through
global institutions. For example, when countries borrowed money from the IMF or World Bank, they
often had to implement reforms. The IMF “loan programs often require recipient countries to
privatize industries and remove trade barriers” 7 . These policies greatly increased cross-border
flows of goods, services, and capital, because businesses could invest more easily and products
could move with fewer restrictions. In effect, markets grew bigger while direct state controls shrank.
• Privatization of State Industries: A clear sign of “state-to-market” shift is that many sectors once
run by the government were opened to private or foreign companies. In dozens of countries,
national airlines, telecom companies, railroads, banks, utilities (electricity, water), and even some
2
social services (schools, hospitals) have been partly or fully privatized 8 . For example, a telecom
company that used to be a government monopoly might become a private firm competing with
foreign companies. This moves decision-making out of elected governments and into private
markets. The notes give concrete examples: “Utilities (electricity, water, telecom) and social services
(education, healthcare) have been partially or fully privatized in numerous countries.” This transfer of
control means states are no longer directly running those services. Instead, their role becomes
regulating or overseeing private providers. Overall, this makes governments “leaner” (smaller in size)
and shifts responsibility (and risk) to markets or companies.
• Global Economic Rules and Institutions: Beyond internal reforms, international institutions also
pushed states toward market policies. Membership in organizations like the World Trade
Organization (WTO) or regional trade agreements often requires countries to remove trade barriers
and follow common rules. For example, WTO members must obey trade rulings (if a country cheats,
it can be sanctioned). Similarly, countries that join free-trade agreements must reduce tariffs on each
other’s goods. These global rules limit how much a state can unilaterally control its economy. Even
without formal agreements, powerful actors like multinational corporations and global financial
markets pressure governments to be “business-friendly.” For instance, if a country imposes high
taxes or tight regulations, businesses might invest elsewhere. The notes also mention that
“governments often accept these arrangements to manage cross-border issues (security,
environment, finance)”, indicating that working with markets and international bodies becomes
necessary.
• Consequences for Welfare and Policy: The shift to markets has real social effects. Many countries
reduced social spending and lowered taxes, arguing that a smaller government would boost growth.
However, this sometimes left gaps in welfare services. The study notes mention that social welfare
systems have come under strain even as policies vary by country. The competition from global
markets can make it hard for governments to raise money or protect industries, which in turn can
affect jobs and public services. Critics of globalization point out that while markets grow, inequality
can widen, because global policies often benefit investors more than workers.
Overall, globalization has not completely removed the state from the economy, but it has significantly
reshaped the state-market balance. As one summary puts it, globalization has produced a “leaner” state
with a new public-private balance. Governments still exist and still regulate, but they often follow market-
friendly policies and cooperate with international economic rules. Some even describe the modern state as
“rolled back” – meaning certain functions (like owning factories or fixing prices) have been given up in favor
of market solutions. Yet states also continue to manage areas where markets struggle, such as enforcing
law, providing basic education, or ensuring national security. In practice, states and markets are deeply
intertwined: global markets pressure states to deregulate, and states create the legal framework that allows
markets to function.
What is globalization? Discuss the inevitability of globalization
What is globalization? In simple terms, globalization is the process by which the world becomes more
connected and interdependent. It involves the rapid expansion of international exchanges – of trade,
money, people, ideas, and culture – across the planet. The student notes definition is clear: “Globalisation
has expanded transnational flows of goods, capital, people and ideas” 9 . In other words, goods made in
one country are sold in others; investors place funds across the world; information and culture spread
3
online and by travel. No single agreed definition exists, but many scholars focus on the economic aspect.
For example, one description says globalization is “an economic model of increased free trade and
interconnectedness,” involving the opening of borders to trade and finance 10 . In everyday language,
globalization means that what happens in one part of the world increasingly affects people elsewhere.
Globalization is multi-dimensional. Besides the economic side, it includes political globalization (growing
international governance through bodies like the UN or trade agreements), cultural globalization (wider
spread of ideas, media, and lifestyles), and technological globalization (the spread of the internet and
communication technologies). For instance, social media allows a person in India to see the same news or
products as someone in Brazil. Airlines and migration mean more people experience life in other countries.
All these processes blur the sharp boundaries of the old nation-state world.
Inevitability of globalization: Many scholars and public figures debate whether globalization is a natural,
unstoppable force or something that can be slowed or reversed.
• Arguments for inevitability: Proponents of globalization (often globalists or market liberals) argue
that the world is on a path of integration that cannot be reversed. They point to technology and
economic logic. For example, Friedman’s popular book The World is Flat suggests that the internet
and communication technologies have “brought the world together” 11 . In this view, as long as
technology keeps advancing, connections deepen: people everywhere can access information and
services online, making societies more similar and interdependent 11 . Similarly, economists like
Richard Baldwin argue that production is organized across borders in global networks, so the
contours of industry “are now increasingly defined by international production networks rather than
the boundaries of nations” 10 . The logic is that once trade barriers fall (like removing tariffs or
capital controls), markets naturally expand worldwide. Each new open market creates more
incentives for others to join, leading to a self-reinforcing cycle. The fact that almost all countries now
participate in the global economy (through trade or finance) suggests to some that globalization is
the new normal. The tendency toward open markets (as in WTO rules, trade agreements, and global
value chains) has become embedded; globalization, in that sense, is “rooted in changes in economic
policy” 12 and by now deeply woven into the fabric of the global economy.
• Arguments against inevitability: On the other hand, many scholars warn that globalization is not
pre-ordained and can be disrupted. History shows that global integration can stall or reverse. Critics
note that globalization peaked in the late 19th century, then collapsed with World War I, and world
trade shrank with the Great Depression. In recent times, the financial crisis of 2008, the rise of
protectionist policies (like Trump’s tariffs), Brexit, and the COVID-19 pandemic have demonstrated
how quickly cross-border flows can face obstacles. As one analysis puts it, there is now as much talk
of the “inevitability of backlash” as there is of globalization itself 13 . Economist Eoin O’Sullivan even
argues that globalization “cannot be uninvented” given modern communications, yet acknowledges
that crises make “a decrease in globalization” seem inevitable again 13 . In other words, even those
who see globalization as powerful admit it can slow down. Others argue that globalization has never
been a uniform, unstoppable force: it can change course or take many forms. For example, some say
we might see more “regionalization” (stronger ties within Europe, Asia, etc.) rather than one world
market. Political choices also matter – a country could deliberately retreat from globalization (e.g. by
imposing tariffs or closing borders) if leaders decide the downsides outweigh the benefits. Finally,
cultural and social factors can resist globalization; for instance, movements for local production,
environmental protection, or cultural preservation can push back on global trends.
4
In summary, globalization is the process of growing global interconnections in many areas of life 9 10 . Its
“inevitability” is contested: while technology and market logic push toward more integration, history and
current events show it can plateau or reverse 13 . Most experts today take a middle view. They agree that
globalization has greatly increased connectivity, but that its path is shaped by choices, conflicts, and crises.
It is not like a law of nature; rather, it is an outcome of human decisions, policies, and innovations. As one
writer says, it should not be assumed that globalization automatically leads to a single global culture or
economy – much depends on power, ideas, and politics at each step 14 . Thus, globalization can be slowed
or shaped by resistance and policy, even as some aspects (like the internet) make it hard to completely
reverse.
Loss of state sovereignty due to globalization
One major fear is that globalization causes a loss of state sovereignty – meaning countries lose control over
what happens within their borders. Sovereignty traditionally means a government’s ultimate authority over
laws, economy, and borders in its territory. How has globalization changed that? The answer is: it has
changed and limited sovereignty, but not completely taken it away. In a globalized world, states still
exist and wield power, but they often share it with international bodies and respond to global forces. Here
are the key ways globalization affects sovereignty:
• International institutions and agreements: Globalization has given rise to many international
organizations (the United Nations, World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, World
Bank, etc.) and treaties (like the Paris Climate Accord or various trade pacts). By joining these, states
accept rules that can override their own laws. For example, when a country signs a trade agreement,
it usually must follow agreed standards on tariffs or intellectual property; if it breaks them, it can
face penalties. The notes highlight that “EU membership entails pooled sovereignty” and “the WTO
imposes trade rules” which influence national policy. In practice, a state in today’s world often cannot
make economic policy in isolation. For instance, many developing countries that borrow from the
IMF must implement policy changes (like cutting subsidies or privatizing industries) as loan
conditions 7 . These requirements limit a government’s freedom to set its own economic agenda.
In addition, global issues often force states to follow international directives. Climate change or
pandemics ignore borders, so global agreements (like emissions targets or health regulations)
constrain what any one state can do. All these factors mean countries often cede parts of their
authority to deal with cross-border challenges. Held and McGrew put it bluntly: “states are required
to cede parts of their autonomy” for global regimes like nuclear non-proliferation or climate accords.
• Regional integration and shared governance: Another example is regional unions like the EU. In
such arrangements, national governments intentionally pool sovereignty. EU member states share
decision-making on many issues, so individual countries can no longer act entirely independently.
The course material notes that in just a few decades, Europe went from separate nations to a
“supranational polity where member states pool sovereignty in trade, environment, and other policy
areas”. This means, for example, that France or Germany must follow EU rules about trade or
pollution limits. They have indeed “given up” some sovereignty in exchange for membership
benefits. There are other cases too: ASEAN in Asia or MERCOSUR in South America involve similar
sharing. The key point is states choose to share power, which changes the traditional idea of
absolute sovereignty.
5
• Transnational challenges and norms: Many modern problems cross borders: terrorism, drug
trafficking, migration, financial crises, pandemics, etc. A single government acting alone cannot
solve these. So states cooperate through networks like INTERPOL (for crime), international courts
(for law), or health organizations (for disease). Cooperation often means accepting certain limits. For
example, many countries agree to extradition treaties or allow foreign inspectors for health or
security. Also, the spread of global norms (human rights, labor standards, environmental standards)
has an impact: if a country violates widely-accepted human rights, it may face international pressure
or sanctions. The notes mention the idea of “conditional sovereignty” – the idea that a state’s
legitimacy depends on following some global norms 15 . In practice, this means that to be a
respected member of the international community, a government might have to abide by rules it did
not set.
• Economic globalization pressures: Global markets and finance also challenge sovereignty. For
instance, a country heavily dependent on foreign investment or trade must consider how its policies
will be seen by investors. A sudden nationalization of an industry could scare off capital. In some
cases, large multinational companies can influence domestic policies indirectly. Moreover, credit
ratings agencies and global financial markets can punish countries with loose fiscal policy by raising
borrowing costs. All this can limit what governments feel able to do. The notes touch on this
indirectly: they say globalization has led states to accept “multi-level governance” and to liberalize
their economies under global pressures. The IMF and WTO examples above also illustrate economic
constraints.
Despite all these factors, sovereignty is not gone. States still run their own militaries, collect taxes, make
and enforce most of their laws, and control their territorial borders. In most policy areas (education, health,
infrastructure, defense), governments retain primary authority. The summary makes this clear:
globalization’s challenge is partial – most countries “retain control over core political functions (laws,
taxation, defense)”. In fact, countries often adapt by changing the nature of sovereignty rather than losing
it. The prevailing view today is that sovereignty is “being shared and stretched rather than obliterated” 6 .
For example, even EU members who share currency and trade rules still have their own national tax
systems and legal systems. Many states have the final say on whether to ratify a treaty or join a group (like a
few EU states “opt out” of certain policies). Also, some international decisions are reversible – a country can
sometimes withdraw from agreements (e.g. Brexit, or canceling a treaty). Furthermore, when global rules
conflict with national interest, states sometimes resist or modify them. The sceptics would point out that no
country has no say – governments can still make sovereign choices about their constitution, defense, and
core society. So sovereignty has become conditional and pooled: the notes call it “sharing power abroad
and reinventing [the state’s] role at home” 16 .
In sum, globalization has eroded some aspects of absolute sovereignty by embedding states in
international networks and rules. States today operate under a “dense web” of international law and
institutions 6 . Yet governments remain critical actors. Citizens still vote for national leaders and expect
them to manage local issues. Sovereignty has not vanished; it has been reconfigured. States are “adapting
to transnational realities” – they still exist, but often in partnership with others 16 . The most balanced
assessment is that sovereignty in the modern world is shared: national authority still exists, but it is
interwoven with global commitments and global governance structures 6 .
6
References: Central ideas and examples here are drawn from course readings (Held & McGrew vs. Hirst &
Thompson, etc.) and the uploaded lecture notes 9 7 4 10 13 . These sources describe and debate
globalization’s nature and its effects on state power.
1 3 4 5 geog2013tc2e.files.wordpress.com
https://geog2013tc2e.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/globalization_overview_byknoxmarston.pdf
2 6 7 8 9 15 16 unit 3 Sovereign State in a Globalised World.pdf
file://file-Dw5nRNdcqjYQsKPwiZZbBr
10 12 Overselling Globalization: The Misleading Conflation of Economic Globalization and Immigration,
13
and the Subsequent Backlash
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/9/5/61
11 ijdssh.com
https://ijdssh.com/admin1/upload/10%20Dr%20KRISHNA%20MURARI%2001122.pdf
14 soc303.wordpress.com
https://soc303.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/soc303_globalizationdebate.pdf
