UNDERSTANDING GLOBALIZATION WITHIN IPE

5 UNDERSTANDING GLOBALIZATION WITHIN IPE

6 As noted already in this chapter, part of this reconfiguration of

7 political power involves questions concerning the role of the state

in contemporary global politics. IPE scholarship on globalization has

144 R ECONFIGURING WORLD POLITICS concentrated almost exclusively on issues concerning the reshaping

or (as some would argue) the ‘reimagining’ of the state. In what follows, we overview the diverse IPE literatures on globalization and the state. Yet, providing an overview of a huge and diverse IPE globalization literature is no easy task. To help navigate our way through this complex literature we will apply what is called a typology – a system of classification. Borrowing from the work of Hay and Marsh (2000) we suggest that the literature on globalization in IPE is best understood in terms of a succession of ‘waves’ of scholarship. In some ways this ‘waves’ typology is rather crude; after all you will notice that not all scholars fit neatly into each category. However, typologies are a useful device to employ in order to help you to find your way through this complex topic (using typologies in this manner is often described as using a system of classification as a heuristic device).

THE FIRST WAVE: GLOBALIZATION AS THE INEVITABLE FUTURE The first wave of globalization scholarship presents the argument

that globalization is an irresistible, even inevitable, force – funda- mentally reshaping global political and economic relationships. We would suggest that there are two types of first wave scholarship. One perspective has been labelled ‘hyperglobalization’ (Higgott and Reich 1998; Held et al. 1999) and ‘business-globalization’ (Hay and Marsh 2000; Cameron and Palan 2004). This is an extreme globalization thesis – one in which globalization is heralding the end of the nation-state as we know it. Writers such as Ohmae (1999) have argued that globalization is bringing about a ‘borderless-world’. Such is the level of activity that now takes place at a global level, the state has become anachronistic, an institution that has become undermined to the point that it is no longer a useful actor in world politics. This view rests upon an extreme deterritorialization and denationalization thesis – that it is no longer possible to think about politics as taking place within territorially defined national boundaries (or ‘nation-states’).

Multinational corporations, presented as a driving force behind economic globalization, are placed in a centrally important role in this wave of globalization literature (hence the term ‘business

R ECONFIGURING WORLD POLITICS 145

1 globalization’) (Reich 1992; Barnet and Cavanagh 1996). Further-

2 more, this hyperglobalist/business globalization strand takes an

3 overtly liberal approach to political economy. This means that these

4 writers view the emergence of a global market economy and the

5 decline in the power of the state as both a good thing and as an

6 inevitable thing; in this sense theirs is a teleological approach to

globalization attached to the ideas of progress and modernization.

8 Many have argued that this hyperglobalization thesis should not

9 be taken seriously (Bruff 2005). It is regarded as too simplistic a

10 view and one that doesn’t square with what we see around us – the

1 way in which states and territorial boundaries remain central of

2 the everyday practice of international politics. Cameron and Palan

3 (2004) have argued, however, that what might be termed as ‘business

4 globalization’ literature is important not because it paints an accurate

5 picture of international politics, but because it represents a highly

6 influential set of ideas. You may well, for example, have come across

7 the term globalization being used in the same way that Ohmae (1999)

and others have employed the term. The influence of these ideas of

9 globalization is a theme that we return to when we turn to discuss

20 the ‘third wave’ of globalization scholarship. 1222