o e
Of
E
r?
u
ň
N
T E %
v   O -g
K. * -
g (U 01 U   H *S
Ihr palcfc-jl «rrmutin
I 3
■£ B
K n.
I 's
1
=
—
-
I
3 1
a f,
9 í
íl 11
-í
*1lonil|<r<..U |l.*IMU i|un.ľh,- q»! v, C|dmiM jmiUi -uinim! Jjqiil.il« --M4ni|.> M.l «II J« M 1*WV O*
fcpian ■sj.icl.«.mi iiu«i».iw.k1       num:i pn •■mwn -nnij Tin aip 'VBll Ja *>•
5
uiiii"!i»ir-i'j
choices made elsewhere, over which states have no practical control. Hvpfrglohalbtm insist that the minimalist political order of the future will be determined by regional economies linked together in nn almost seamless global web of production and exchange.
Thr group of glubaliration sceptics disagrees, highlighting instead the ivulnd mlc of imlitits in unleashing the fonrrs nf globalization, especially through the successful mobilization of political power, [n their view, the rapid expansion of global economic activity can Ix1 reduced neither to a. natural law <rf the market nor to the development nt'computer technology, Katller. it nriginBlcd with political decisions to lift international restrictions on capital made by neoliberal xnvemmeiiU in thr 1980« and 1'isku. Once those decisions were implemented, global market* and new technologies came into their own. The dear implicate ill uf this perspertii c i -that territory still matters. Hence, glolxalixatinn sceptics insist on the continued relevance of Conventional political units, operating either in the form of modern nation-states or global cities.
l'he arguments of both hypcrglobalizers and sceptics remain entangled in ■ particularly vexing; version of the chicken-and-Ihe-egg problem. After all, economic farms nf interdependence are set into motion by political decisions^ but these decisions are nonetheless made in particular economic contexts. As we haw noted in previous chapters, the economic and political aspect! of global ization are profoundly interconnected. Then- is no question that recent economic dcxrlopmenls such as trade I iberalizatinn and deregulation have significantly constrained the sot of political nptinns open In states, particularly in the global South. For example, it has become much easier for capital to escape taxation and other national policy restrictions. 'Ions, global markets frequently undermine the rapacity of gravemments to set independent national policy objectives And impose their own domestic st.inil.nt- Hence, we ought to
acknowledge the decline of the nation-state as a sovereign entity and the ensuing devolution of Slate power to regional and local governments ax well as to various supranational institutions,
Oil the other hand, such a concession does not necessarily mean that nation-states have become impotent bystanders to the workings of global forces, Governments can stil I take measures to make their economies more or less attractive tu glohal investors. In addition, nation-states have retained control over education, infrastructure, and, most importantly, population movements. Indeed, immigration control, together with population regirtrntiou ai>d monitoring, ha* often Iwn eited as the most notable exception to the general trend toward global integration. Although only 2 percent uf the worlds population live outside their country of origin, immigration control lias become a central issue in most advanced nations. Many governments seek to restrict population flows, particularly those originating in the poor countries of (lie global South. Even in the United States, annua] inflow* of about 1,400,00", imrnlgrants during the 2000a orry i i.|uali:-d tin li    I-. i-.-.       i.l during the lir-: two decades o1 - ■• with century.
finally, the series of drastic national security measures that were implemented Worldwide as a response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 reflect political dynamics that run counter lit the hxperglobalizers' predictions of a horderless world. Some civil rights advocates still fear that the enormous expansion of national security measures around the world might enable state* tn re-impose restrictions un the freedom of movement and asaemhly. At the same time, however, the artivities uf global terrorist networks hm-e revealed the inadequacy of conveuunnal natiunal security structures based on the modern nation-state system, thus forcing national governments to engage in nevy forms of international cooperation.
EC
a
llOjUll iin.-HÍilj|lr.| .ii[r. 'Hl'tt
.... n.'iK^r ľi
between mummix Bovemmrntfll and rvon-guveriiineiital «rjp»ni»tiofl6. If flich a promising sosnaiio indeed will come to pass, llwti the linaJ uutrnmeof political ejobali2atiuii] might well be thr rTnrrjjcTKX' of a cosmopolitan democracy tlmt would constitute the basis for a plurality of identities flourishing within 41 stricture of mutual toleratkm and aixxnntahilrry. Accordi ng to lljLuii.l Hulcl. uiif ut'thr-rhiH proponent* of this view, the ccismcipnlitjui democrac}'of the future would contain thr foil-i^iilu political featuresc:
1. A dubal parliament conni-crod lu regions-, atatui. and localities;
2. A new charter of rights, and duties locked into different domains of political. social, and emnnrnx- power;
3. The formal separation of political and tmiHititc interests; +.   An interconriecvd gluTml I^hI system viith mechajiiinu at
mfofcetnteril from the local to the gluLd.
A number Of 1»& Optimistic commentatnrs have challenged the Idea llial political idrihiiliralion it- Moving in the direction of
Irthtttgo^rnrnftntaJ and Ragfenal Aaaociallflni
I", Incipient global gmtrintH-r: ■ n^inii of interrelated pnw«
llliln-K
Scmm: adifnK Irun IVii-r IV,]*j. Timir^UJuJ jdoo minliTWiiul rr^in^rillijl* In rJdnl potOM: In B^tii mil ShmJlh. Hi Lihfc«AiMftii- cfWtrii rUitkr.     dniun Jill I. p 33H
i.-osmoTto-littiri democracy. Mont criticisms boll down to the charge that such a vision indulges in an ahtf ract idealism that fails to enjrajfr current political developments on the level of public policy. Sceptics Hav* also expressed the suspicion that the proponent? of coBmopolllanisrn dn not consider in sufficient detail lhe eullural +i-j«ibilin- of global democracy. In other words, the worldwide intensification of cultural, political, nud
economic interaction makes the pinsil>i .it' i-r' rixi-,r.,,,, , Opposition just as real as Lhe benign vision of mutual arrommodatHHL and tolerance of differences. To follow up uti llii.1 cultural dimension al global i7ation, let us turn to the
next chapter.