Globalisation is the phenomenon in which people, businesses and organisations become more interconnected or integrated as a result of technological advancements in communication and transportation. Globalisation comes in three different forms; cultural, economic and political. Cultural globalisation can be defined as the movement of ideas, attitudes and beliefs across national borders. These ideas, attitudes and beliefs form a monoculture or a “borderless world” (Ohame 1992) which is direct result of globalisation due to tourism and the internet. In contrast, economic globalisation can be defined as the cross-border movement of goods, capital, information and technology resulting in greater economic integration and interdependence globally. Lastly, political globalisation refers to the governments or political institutions becoming members of international institutions such as the United Nations. Governments which are part of these organisations will have to follow international guidelines and political ideals that are set. So, what is the nation-state? The Nation state can be said to be the sovereign state in which citizens share a common language and cultural tradition/background. When discussing globalisation and the status of the nation-state, in times of hyper-globalisation, we are referring to whether or not the nation-state wields any power against large transnational companies, political groups etc. This essay will attempt to outline and explain the various difficulties nation states face in times of hyper-globalisation and whether these nation-states are being ‘eroded away’. It is evident that the nation-state is being eroded away and coming to an end as a result of globalisation. The increased power and influence of businesses, political bodies and the decreased levels of nationalism and patriotism are just a few of the signs that show that the nation-state is coming to an end.
Nationality generally refers to a common language, ethnicity, tradition or culture all of which is set in a geographical area. Globalisation and the nation-state are fundamentally opposed to one another. As globalisation has increased “nationalism has passed and its strength, power, and relevance are not the same as it was in the 19th and early 20th centuries” (Eric Hobsbawm, 1992). This is because, globalisation affects individual cultural identity, as it creates ‘cultural globalisation’. Cultural globalisation is the transmission of ideas, values and traditions around the world. This means that a certain set of values, ideas and traditions are no longer just evident in one nation but evident globally hence the term “borderless world”(Ohmae 1992). Evidence of this can be seen in both western and eastern societies. In the west, major cities such as London, Milan, Paris are all becoming clones of one another. These cities were once praised for their uniqueness and cultural differences and now they are nothing but clones of one another as a result of globalisation. In eastern countries there is increasing ‘McDonaldziation’ which is “the process whereby the principles of the fast-food restaurant are coming to dominate more and more sectors of American society as well as the rest of the world" (Ritzer 1993: 19). Thus, the statement ‘globalisation has led to the end of the nation-state’ can be declared true. As people have become more and more interconnected through technological advances, it has led to cultural identities being distorted. Nationalism, to some extent, can be said to have come to an end. The unique differences between cultures and societies such as the “tastes, styles, and other economically-induced phenomena circumvent or even blur physical or political borders.” and now there is a common culture among states. Thus, the nation-state can be said to have come to an end as a result of globalisation.
However, despite increased globalisation leading to cultural differences becoming blurred and the importance of nation-state in citizen lives, to some extent, becoming insignificant. It would be an exaggeration to say that ‘the nation-state has come to an end’ as a result of globalisation. Although citizens have become more interconnected with other nations and their cultures, ideas and traditions, their interconnectedness does not go beyond this. Fundamentally, citizens still identify with a ‘national identity’ which doesn’t go beyond the geographical boundaries of the nation. Evidence of this can be seen when natural disasters occur, or great atheltic achievements are obtained in countries outside their nation. Individuals do not react to these events in the same way as they would if they were to occur in their own nation. Therefore, although we have become interconnected and, to some extent, become a monoculture, individuals continue to identify with their nation and not react to events occuring in ‘foreign’ nations. This is why the claims that globalisation has led to the end of nation state can be deemed false, as people still primarily identify with their nation-state and not with other nation-states from foreign countries.
Globalisation has led to the growth in the number of transnational companies in the 21st century. Technological advances have made it easier for companies to transport goods from one country to another, as well as set head quarters in different countries. This growth has enabled some companies to obtain supernormal incomes, some of which are greater than nation-state GDP’s. An example of this would be Wal-Mart Stores in 2010 who’s revenue was over $400bn, greater than the GDP generated by countries such as Norway, New Zealand and many more. . This gives these corporations a considerable amount of power over nation-states and international government organisations such as the World Bank (Gregory, 2018). “Globalization has challenged the ability of states to influence the economy” (Morselli 2018). Corporations are now exerting their power against nation-states through the threat of offshoring jobs and employment to other countries where production and labour costs are cheaper. This places pressure on nation-states to keep their minimum wages low, and ensure their policies are in favour of these large corporations. Further evidence that proves that nation-states are coming to an end as a result of globalisation is that they are now being sued by large corporations. “the government of Indonesia announced the cancellation of its bilateral investment treaty (BIT) with the Netherlands and its intention to review all of its other existing BITs that expose the country to the ISDS system. The decision is also based on hard experience. Indonesia is currently being sued for US$1.05bn by British-registered mining corporation Churchill Mining.”. This shows that despite the nation-states futile attempts to maintain a hold on their power, they continue to be at the mercy of transnational companies. Therefore, claims that globalisation has led to the end of the nation-state can be deemed as true, as the nation state no longer has power and control over issues that may affect it, as it once did in the past.
Despite nation-states influence being less significant and powerful in some areas, as a result of globalisation. Nation-states still hold an immense amount of power and are now more powerful than ever (Goldblatt et al. 1997). Economic globalisation has only been possible because nation-states have allowed it to flourish. It is not a blind and deterministic force which cannot be contained. Individual nations have set policies and rules in place that have allowed globalisation to operate in their nations. The reason for this is because economic globalisation brings new competiton into a nation, and as a consequence of this, higher GDP’s and less state monopolies. Further evidence to support the view that globalisation has not led to the end of the nation state is that the nation state is the only body which can control and act as a force against globalisation. If globalisation was left to its own devices, without regulation or control, human rights and justice would be at risk. However, collectively or singularly nation-states are the ones that set the rules, in which globalisation must follow if it wasn’t to continue to operate anf flourish within these nations. Thus showing that globalisation has not led to the end of the nation-state as the nation-states are the ones who hold the most power in an age of hyper-globalisation, as they are the key players in whether globalisation flourishes or not (Guido and Alberti, 2001).