Political Globalization/SHIN MIN KYEONG

1. Summary

Political globalization has been much discussed in the globalization literature. Political globalization, we argue, can be understood as a tension between three processes which interact to produce the complex field of global politics: global geopolitics, global normative culture and polycentric networks.

There can be little doubt that one of the most pervasive forms of political globalization is the worldwide spread of democracy based on the parliamentary nationstate. Democratic government exists in some form in most parts of the world and where it does not, as in China, there is a considerable demand for it by democratic movements. This is a territorially based kind of globalization and largely confined to the political form of the nation-state. after 1991, democracy has become the universally acceptable form of government. In this sense then, globalization does not undermine the democratic nation-state but gives it worldwide acceptability. democratic nation-state in many parts of the world has given rise to very different kinds of political cultures. The globalization of democratic politics has been the basis of the so-called ‘new world order’.

Thus, the first dimension of political globalization is the geopolitics of global power. A second dimension of political globalization refers to the rise of a global normative culture. One of the main expressions of this is human rights, it also includes environmental concerns. Political communication is now also global in scope, no longer confined to national borders.

Global civil society, for example, is not separate from geopolitics, but occupies a separate space beyond the state and global market. It exists alongside the state and has been consequential in influencing global geopolitics in the direction of multilateralism and global solidarity. Assumption: political globalization is not leading in the direction of a new global order of governance or world society but to transnational political action which challenges neoliberal politics.

States continue to be powerful actors but exist in a more globally connected world that they do not fully control (see Sorensen 2004). According to Susan Strange (1996), in the most well-known formulation of this position, states have been usurped by global markets. With the transition from a world economy dominated by national economies to a global economy new economic forces come into play challenging the power of the nation-state.

According to Majone (1996) the transnationalization of the state in Europe is best seen in terms of a regulatory kind of governance rather than the creation of a new state system that challenges the nation-state. The European Union possesses a large number of independent regulatory authorities, working in fi elds such as the environment, drugs and drug addiction, vocational training, health and safety at work, the internal market, racism and xenophobia, food safety, aviation safety. States have always had regulatory functions; what is different today is simply these functions are being performed at a transnational level through cooperation with other states. . The nation-state does not ‘wither away’ but becomes transformed by becoming a functional component of this transnational apparatus and a major agent of global capitalism. In this analysis, globalization reconfigures the state around global capitalism, making it impossible for nationstates to be independent.

Communication is central to politics. Most nation-states have been based on a national language, which was increasingly standardized over time. In addition, political parties have been at the centre of large-scale apparatuses of political communication which they have used for social influence. If the Enlightenment public was based on alleged free discussion, the public today is based on professional political communication and mass persuasion through systematic advertising and lobbying: for Mayhew this amounts to a‘new public’ (Mayhew 1997). However, as argued by Habermas (1989), communication is an open site of political and cultural contestation and is never fully institutionalized by the state or entirely controlled by elites and their organs of political communication. The public sphere is the site of politics; it is not merely a spatial location but a process of discursive contestation (see Calhoun 1992; Crossley and Roberts 2004).

While debates continue on the question of the global public sphere as a transnational space, what is more important is the emergence of a global public discourse, which is less a spatially defi ned entity than a manifestation of discourse (Delanty 2006). The global public is the always ever present sphere of discourse that contextualizes political communication and public discourse today.

Individual, and the new transnational or global communities, networks and publics which have come into existence and which are in turn driving new forms of politics. Central to understanding these developments is the idea of civil society which perhaps more than any other development has come to symbolize the political potential of globalization, and signals the onset of globalization from below. The ‘civil societalization’ of politics both reinforces the idea that politics is increasingly informed by a normative global culture and points to the transformation of the nation-state as a site of political struggle.

In short, the growth of global civil society is the result of increasing opportunities for interaction between domestic and international politics. It is not adequate to view global civil society as an aggregate of previously existing national civil societies: global civil society is founded upon a non-territorial political imaginary.

The image of a ‘borderless world’ has long been associated with thinking about globalization. We are increasingly conscious of the shrinking dimensions or compression of an increasingly interconnected world and the way in which this renders the globe meaningful and brings it within the grasp of all individuals.

For Castells, the advent of network society signals the decline of industrial society, the former relying on a space of flows, the latter on a space of places. The second dynamic is best represented by Beck’s (2002) idea of ‘cosmopolitanization’ or ‘globalization from within societies’. Beck emphasizes that the nature of state and society is undergoing change as a result of globalization and that inside/outside, and domestic/foreign assume new meanings. The globe can be experienced as a single political space which can be the focus of political attachments and identities, communities of interest, and can form a sphere of action. For many, the world is a single place and political activity and individual consciousness are increasing.

Political globalization has resulted in a new set of tensions around which politics is now structured. Whereas key political conflicts were previously centred on class divisions, state versus civil society, cleavages between traditional and industrial economies or resistance to imperial rule, supplementary contestations have arisen around a changed set of concerns: the right to difference, individual versus community, liberal democracy versus cosmopolitanism. Indeed, political globalization

has worked to create the possibility for a proliferation of sites of political conflict around an expanded set of concerns: governance, identity, mobilities and community prominent amongst them.

 

1. Summary

Political globalization has been much discussed in the globalization literature. Political globalization, we argue, can be understood as a tension between three processes which interact to produce the complex field of global politics: global geopolitics, global normative culture and polycentric networks.

There can be little doubt that one of the most pervasive forms of political globalization is the worldwide spread of democracy based on the parliamentary nationstate. Democratic government exists in some form in most parts of the world and where it does not, as in China, there is a considerable demand for it by democratic movements. This is a territorially based kind of globalization and largely confined to the political form of the nation-state. after 1991, democracy has become the universally acceptable form of government. In this sense then, globalization does not undermine the democratic nation-state but gives it worldwide acceptability. democratic nation-state in many parts of the world has given rise to very different kinds of political cultures. The globalization of democratic politics has been the basis of the so-called ‘new world order’.

Thus, the first dimension of political globalization is the geopolitics of global power. A second dimension of political globalization refers to the rise of a global normative culture. One of the main expressions of this is human rights, it also includes environmental concerns. Political communication is now also global in scope, no longer confined to national borders.

Global civil society, for example, is not separate from geopolitics, but occupies a separate space beyond the state and global market. It exists alongside the state and has been consequential in influencing global geopolitics in the direction of multilateralism and global solidarity. Assumption: political globalization is not leading in the direction of a new global order of governance or world society but to transnational political action which challenges neoliberal politics.

States continue to be powerful actors but exist in a more globally connected world that they do not fully control (see Sorensen 2004). According to Susan Strange (1996), in the most well-known formulation of this position, states have been usurped by global markets. With the transition from a world economy dominated by national economies to a global economy new economic forces come into play challenging the power of the nation-state.

According to Majone (1996) the transnationalization of the state in Europe is best seen in terms of a regulatory kind of governance rather than the creation of a new state system that challenges the nation-state. The European Union possesses a large number of independent regulatory authorities, working in fi elds such as the environment, drugs and drug addiction, vocational training, health and safety at work, the internal market, racism and xenophobia, food safety, aviation safety. States have always had regulatory functions; what is different today is simply these functions are being performed at a transnational level through cooperation with other states. . The nation-state does not ‘wither away’ but becomes transformed by becoming a functional component of this transnational apparatus and a major agent of global capitalism. In this analysis, globalization reconfigures the state around global capitalism, making it impossible for nationstates to be independent.

Communication is central to politics. Most nation-states have been based on a national language, which was increasingly standardized over time. In addition, political parties have been at the centre of large-scale apparatuses of political communication which they have used for social influence. If the Enlightenment public was based on alleged free discussion, the public today is based on professional political communication and mass persuasion through systematic advertising and lobbying: for Mayhew this amounts to a‘new public’ (Mayhew 1997). However, as argued by Habermas (1989), communication is an open site of political and cultural contestation and is never fully institutionalized by the state or entirely controlled by elites and their organs of political communication. The public sphere is the site of politics; it is not merely a spatial location but a process of discursive contestation (see Calhoun 1992; Crossley and Roberts 2004).

While debates continue on the question of the global public sphere as a transnational space, what is more important is the emergence of a global public discourse, which is less a spatially defi ned entity than a manifestation of discourse (Delanty 2006). The global public is the always ever present sphere of discourse that contextualizes political communication and public discourse today.

Individual, and the new transnational or global communities, networks and publics which have come into existence and which are in turn driving new forms of politics. Central to understanding these developments is the idea of civil society which perhaps more than any other development has come to symbolize the political potential of globalization, and signals the onset of globalization from below. The ‘civil societalization’ of politics both reinforces the idea that politics is increasingly informed by a normative global culture and points to the transformation of the nation-state as a site of political struggle.

In short, the growth of global civil society is the result of increasing opportunities for interaction between domestic and international politics. It is not adequate to view global civil society as an aggregate of previously existing national civil societies: global civil society is founded upon a non-territorial political imaginary.

The image of a ‘borderless world’ has long been associated with thinking about globalization. We are increasingly conscious of the shrinking dimensions or compression of an increasingly interconnected world and the way in which this renders the globe meaningful and brings it within the grasp of all individuals.

For Castells, the advent of network society signals the decline of industrial society, the former relying on a space of flows, the latter on a space of places. The second dynamic is best represented by Beck’s (2002) idea of ‘cosmopolitanization’ or ‘globalization from within societies’. Beck emphasizes that the nature of state and society is undergoing change as a result of globalization and that inside/outside, and domestic/foreign assume new meanings. The globe can be experienced as a single political space which can be the focus of political attachments and identities, communities of interest, and can form a sphere of action. For many, the world is a single place and political activity and individual consciousness are increasing.

Political globalization has resulted in a new set of tensions around which politics is now structured. Whereas key political conflicts were previously centred on class divisions, state versus civil society, cleavages between traditional and industrial economies or resistance to imperial rule, supplementary contestations have arisen around a changed set of concerns: the right to difference, individual versus community, liberal democracy versus cosmopolitanism. Indeed, political globalization

has worked to create the possibility for a proliferation of sites of political conflict around an expanded set of concerns: governance, identity, mobilities and community prominent amongst them.

 

2. Interesting point

Previously, the biggest feature of globalization was that globalization centered on trade. However, the biggest characteristic of globalization nowadays is that globalizaiton connects trade, production, investment and finance. In addition, the degree of integration of labor, services and culture has become unprecedented. In other words, the difference in economic integration is greater than in the past. The other side is that there is a certain ideological base in the current globalization.

 

  The previous globalization was triggered by innovation. Today's globalization is also based on technological innovation. The development of transportation has reduced the psychological distance between countries. Today, however, nowadays globalization is characterized by the globalization of political hegemony. The ideological base of political hegemony is ‘neoliberalism’. Neoliberalism has certain American values. It also focuses more on the autonomy of the state than the existing embedded liberalism. In fact, neoliberalism has become a ‘global standard’, and it means the world conforms to U.S. standards. Globalization aims to move upward globally through innovation, but it is also forcing other countries to meet U.S. standards.

 A number of side effects have arisen as a result of this integration. A typical side effect is inequality. In particular, relative inequality is becoming a big problem. It is because there is also a question of how to measure inequality. In the small part, we need to distinguish whether the problems are domestic or international.

 

  So, what will happen to globalization now? Just as the previous generation of globalization collapsed in the Great Depression and its reaction, will nowadays globalization collapse too? There have already been several challenges to the liberal international order. There have been cases like the NIEO, a group of developing countries, and China's challenges are ongoing. The current globalization is based on another "uncertainty" than the previous generation.

3. Discussion

 

What is the 'new globalization' that we will face in the future? Not a few countries are locking their borders. There are also some signs of resurgence of nationalism in some countries. Why did this happen and what would globalization look like in the future?