The state as an actor in global politics

von: Christof Dieterle

1. INTRODUCTION 3

2. THREE APPROACHES TO THE NATURE AND ROLE OF THE STATE 3

2.1 Advocates of the “weakened state” 3
2.2 Advocates of the “transformed state” 5
2.3 Advocates of the “unchanged state” 6

3. A DIFFERENT APPROACH 7

4. CONCLUSION 8

5. BIBLIOGRAPHY: 9

1. Introduction

As the title of this paper suggests, the state is seen by many scholars as the central actor as far as global politics is concerned. Some see it weakened, some see it transformed, and others do not seem to observe any substantial change at all. This paper is intended to give a brief – and by no means comprehensive – overview on the current discussions in the field. In the first part of this paper I will examine the main arguments put forward by different scholars. I will do so by dividing them up into three categories: 1) advocates of the “weakened state”, 2) advocates of the “transformed state” and 3) advocates of the “unchanged state”. In the second part I will include a very different scholarly approach, namely that the state is the wrong unit of analysis as far as global politics is concerned and thus the question of its transformation or weakening is of little interest for the analysis of politics on a global level. The third and last part consists of a brief summary of the observations made in the previous chapters and ends with some conclusions drawn from these observations.

2. Three approaches to the nature and role of the state

Trying to assign different scholars to distinct groups is always a difficult task as the dividing lines between the different groups are normally rather fuzzy and the groups that are established are somewhat arbitrary in the first place. Nevertheless, I find it helpful to distinguish between the aforementioned three groups, as it helps to somehow identify the different directions of the scholarly debate.

2.1 Advocates of the “weakened state”

There are scholars arguing that the state has lost power in regard to its influence in global political decision making processes. James Rosenau, for example, sees the reason for the weakened position of the state in global politics as a result of a loss of authority. He states this in a metaphor: “[W]here states used to be like museum curators, planning, arranging and funding their exhibits, today they resemble museum guards, guiding the flow of visitors through the exhibits, protecting against vandalism and ensuring that all the rules are obeyed.”1

This metaphor makes clear that the loss of authority, manifesting itself in the inability to control the flow of ideas, production facilities or terrorism across borders, weakens the state. Furthermore, Rosenau identifies different spheres of authority (SOA), for example professional societies, neighbourhoods, corporations or codes of conduct.2 These SOAs are not confined to the territoriality of a nation state but can reach across its borders and thus weaken it. One example for this loss of authority is put forward in a case study done by Bernedette Muthien and Ian Taylor on the financial politics of Sierra Leone, where the IMF had a large influence on the political decision-making processes in the country. In their study, these two authors identify “… [] a system where international financiers have displaced states in […] political and economic decision-making”.3 This concept of diminishing power goes hand in hand with the concept of relative power.

[...]

1 James Rosenau, Distant Proximities. Dynamics beyond Globalization. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 66.

2 Ibid. p. 294-295.

3 Bernatdette Mushien / Ian Taylor, The return of the dogs of war? The privatization of security in Africa. in: Rodney Bruce Hall / Thomas J. Biersteker (eds), The Emergence of Private Authority in Global Governance. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 193.