Welcome to UK Essays:

• Home
• Prices
• Order now
• Guarantees
• How this works

About UK Essays:

• About UK Essays
• Helping the Community
• Press
• Custom essays
• FAQs
• Meet us
• Testimonials
• Scam warning
• What's your situation?
• Contact UK Essays
• Request a callback

Our Services:

• Essay writing services
• Dissertation writing services
• LPC writing services
• MBA writing services
• PHD writing services
• Marking services
• Other services

Other Information:

• Get verified
• Search
• Terms and conditions
• Privacy policy
• Further information
• Writer jobs
• Recommend a friend

Essay & Dissertation Help:

• Essay help
• Free essays
• Dissertation help
• Free dissertations
• Plagiarism scanner

Free Essays - History Essays

To what extent has the power of the nation state declined in the post Cold War era?

“The State acquires power… and because of its insatiable lust for power it is incapable of giving up any of it. The State never abdicates.”

Frank Chodorow

INTRODUCTION

In recent years there has been considerable discussion amongst academics regarding a possible decline in the power of nation states. The essay title infers that there has been some tangible decline in the power of the nation state, however is this really the case, or has much of this anti-state rhetoric simply confused an ongoing transformation in the mode of state activity with a reduction in its significance?

What exactly is meant by the terms ‘power’ and ‘nation state’? In its simplest sense, power is ‘the ability of a political actor to achieve its goals’, and although sometimes deemed a constraint, it is actually what makes human action possible. Power is not an entity that can be discretely measured but moreover a relationship between different actors which is described in terms of the ‘relative strengths, equal or unequal, that exist’. The nation state can be described as ‘political community in which the state claims legitimacy on the grounds that it represents the nation’ and for who it therefore exists to provide a sovereign territory. In the context of this essay the nation state will be referred to as ‘the state’ and described using examples in Western Europe within a timeframe post 1989.

The focus will be the ability of the state to provide order, security, wealth and welfare for its citizens from whom (in their eyes), it derives its legitimacy. The essay will argue that far from there being an outright decline in the power of the state, what we are witnessing is a number of challenges to which states are adapting as they re-establish themselves in the era of globalization.

THE COLD WAR

The period described as the Cold War ran from 1945 to the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. The period was dominated by a ‘Realist theory’ of international relations that characterised ‘hard power’ in terms of economic and military capability. This created a sense of ‘false stability’ as states focused on creating an equilibrium between the two super-powers; reality however, observed the emergence of numerous ‘failed-states’ created in the aftermath of decolonisation and an ever increasing slide towards global instability.

States focused their efforts on inter-state relations rather than on the domestic agenda. Increasingly the expectation of their citizens as to what a state should deliver was being contradicted by a diminishing overall capacity of the state to be able to do so. It was at this time that some leaders began to dismantle the very institutions that underpinned the economic and social cohesion of the state. Both Thatcher in the UK and Reagan in the US were ‘roll[ing] back the power of the state’ as they made a ‘concerted effort to accelerate and deepen financial deregulation, trade, liberalism and privatisation.’ Indeed, it could be argued that it was the extensive power of the state, with its monopoly on the control of violence, that allowed such a radical program of deregulation and privatisation to be undertaken; the deployment of large numbers of police against the striking miners in 1984 and the defeat of union opposition being a point in case.

It is ironical therefore, that the end of the Cold War was brought about in many ways not by ‘hard power’, but by the use of capitalist ‘soft power’, and ‘it was the Soviet Union’s marginalisation [from the unfolding economic globalization] that revealed and identified its true weaknesses.’

POST-COLD WAR ERA

If the Cold War era was characterised by a degree of ‘stability', the years that followed witnessed states being confronted by instability, uncertainty and unpredictability. The challenge for states was to reduce their vulnerability whilst retaining their autonomy and their ability to order affairs in the face of an ever increasing diffusion of power to other actors such as global markets and the ‘International System’, with ‘globalization’ providing the biggest test.

Globalization is not a new phenomena but a process that has been going on for centuries. It can be argued that one of the first products of globalization was the export of the nation state itself, facilitated by the spread of economic liberalism and nationalism. Despite the unprecedented economic advantages of a globalized economy, states are finding themselves undermined by other actors who are quick to exploit the new environment to their advantage.

As an example, there are now more than 64,000 major Trans-national Companies (TNCs). The explosion in the number of TNCs, facilitated by the deregulation of barriers to trade, has freed many businesses from the traditional constraints imposed by states with the result that TNCs find themselves increasingly less tied to nations and national interests. These companies have become particularly adept at evading traditional state controls, such as taxation and employment law, by moving their resources outside of state borders and by being able to influence its citizens. On the face of it, they would appear to have significantly eroded the power of the state in managing economic affairs. With the rapid flows of capital around the world, exposure to global markets highlights the risks that states must run in pursuit of economic prosperity; a fact that the recent downturn in world markets has clearly demonstrated.

The reality however is not as simple, and on the face of it, the de-nationalization of industry handed control of key state responsibilities such as infrastructure, telecommunications, energy and banking to the private sector. In reality, what the state managed to achieve was to unburden itself of a number of assets that were run on electoral principles rather than those of good business. Many of these businesses had ‘turned into albatrosses that were grossly overstaffed, incurred enormous losses, demanded vast subsidies and hung like chains around the state’s neck.’ In addition, the state retained its influence by creating ‘an extensive network of regulatory agencies which added an important component to state capacity.’

‘Clearly there are aspects of globalization that are beyond the control of states.’ The markets themselves are not a naturally occurring phenomenon, but the product of legislation and regulation. Therefore changes in legislation and regulation that can be enacted by states subsequently change the balance of advantage in these markets, and it is this structuring role by states that underpins globalization. The power of the state has been reinforced by the concept that business will always be subject to some degree of national control, whatever the origin of that regulation. Governments created General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and they also created the World Trade Organisation (WTO) which have allowed for freer trade and movement of capital. Because the WTO and other regional organisations primarily focus on trade they do not constitute supra-national government, and as such, have not replicated an equivalent authority at that level.

In addition, there is good evidence to suggest that many companies still have a special relationship with their ‘home country’, feeling that they are able to count on state assistance to protect their existing markets and to further their interests overseas. The recent intervention of the UK government in preventing the collapse of Northern Rock is an example of the extent that states may be prepared to assist. Therefore, ‘although globalization has been seen as destroying the capacity of the state, it is states through their ability to structure economic action that have created the globalized world economy’, primarily for their own benefit.

Another consequence of the computer and telecommunications revolution is that the state’s ‘monopoly on the collection and management of large amounts of information’ has been broken. The internet can connect people across national borders thus ‘amplifying political and social fragmentation whilst enabling more and more identities and interests to be scattered around the globe’; something that the state has found impossible to control. Amongst the principal beneficiaries of this information explosion have been Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) who are able to ‘move beyond the limitations of the state in order to pursue their own agendas in the increasingly globalized political terrain of the post-Cold War era.’ Their resources and expertise, in some cases, have approximated those of some smaller states and in many areas they have assumed responsibilities once deemed to be the concern of the state. ‘Today NGOs deliver more official development assistance than the entire UN system’ and in many countries they are delivering the most basic needs of the population. Their ability to transcend national borders offers citizens unprecedented channels of influence and ‘forces governments to consider both domestic opinion and public opinion in countries with which they are dealing.’ At the international level NGOs have managed to exert significant influence in the area of climate change ‘something that has yet to be matched in any other arena.’

That said, for all their strengths, NGOs are special interest groups, often suffering from tunnel vision and without the capacity to undertake more wide-ranging endeavours. Although no longer able monopolise the media, states have realised the importance of using the media to their advantage; the emergence of ‘special government advisors’ being testimony to this. Moreover, there are roles that only the state can perform such as imposing order and raising taxes and for that reason NGOs despite their influence, will continue to need the state and its apparatus in order to function. Indeed, by ‘helping solve problems governments cannot handle, both NGOs and TNCs may actually be strengthening the state system.’

State power is also being challenged from above by supra-national institutions. The United Nations (UN), European Union (EU), and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) are all examples of institutions created by the state and for the state. Since the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, the EU, ‘through economic policy recommendations, standardisation procedures and court decisions’ has demonstrated an unprecedented ability to interfere in the domestic affairs of member states. ‘In this sense the EU penetrates and to some extent weakens the internal bonds of its member states.’ The UN has evolved to play a role ‘akin to that of the medieval popes in authorising or prohibiting states from waging war’ and even NATO, through the Conventional Forces Europe Treaty has superseded state sovereignty, allowing weapons inspections by foreign nationals.

In response to this erosion of sovereignty, states have attempted to regain power, for example, by tightening border controls (often in the guise of anti-terrorism), introducing identity cards and acting to reinforce national identities (citizenship exams). Domestically, some states have recentralised, taking power back from regional authorities (often by constraining their finances), with one of the most important factors in preventing a decline of the state being the enduring popularity of the welfare state and its ability to provide for citizens. Although the EU has been seen to challenge national identity there is evidence to support strong correlations between both European and national identification and, as such, the two run together, rather than being a direct challenge to each other. The example of the US further highlights that a multi-ethnic, cosmopolitan society doesn’t necessarily lead to a reduction in national identity.

It is well argued that institutions such as the EU and UN are not representative and therefore they undermine the democratic principles that states are built upon. This may well be true to a certain degree, however it would be idealistic to forget that states enrol in these institutions in order to further their own national interests. In exchange for some loss of autonomy comes a larger market, higher standards, better protection for citizens and greater economic stability. The recent rejection of the EU constitution in France and Holland highlights that there is also a threshold beyond which, both citizens and states, will reassert their sovereignty if national interests dictate. The fact remains that many of these institutions are only as strong as the political will of their members (states) or the degree to which they are funded by them. The result is now, that states are forced more and more to fuse domestic and foreign policy as they adapt to these challenges.

CONCLUSION

It would be naïve to argue against a relative decline of state power in certain areas such as information control and the transfer of certain powers to supra-national institutions, especially the EU. However, this must be balanced in the overall equation by the notion that such declines are countered by states assuming powers elsewhere, for example by strengthening economic legislation and recentralising power domestically. The net effect is that the overall power of the state remains well above critical mass. In an era where power is diffused more widely, states have realised that ‘soft power’ can be a more economical and effective than ‘hard power’ alone. Therefore, what we are witnessing is a transitory flux in the power of the state as it transforms into a globalized state and because we are still in the midst of this transformation it is difficult to get a sense of historical perspective. As states will continue to be the prime interlocutor at all levels in an increasingly complex world, ‘they are not going to disappear; not least because they still have considerable utility and capacity to attract allegiance.’ They will continue to adapt to and although their form may change, sovereignty will remain grounded in the state.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

• Baylis, John, and Smith, Steve, The globalization of world politics: an introduction to international relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005)
• Buzan, Barry, People States and Fear: An agenda for International Security Studies after the Cold War era (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991)
• Buzan, Barry, Waever, O, and Wilde, J, Security: a new framework for analysis (London: Lynne Reinner, 1998)
• Cooper, Robert, The breaking of nations: order and chaos in the Twenty-first Century (London: Atlantic Books, 2004)
• Davis, Jane, Security Issues in the post-Cold War world (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1996)
• Ferguson, R. Brian, The state, identity and violence: political disintegration in the post-Cold War world (London: Routledge, 2002)
• Jackson, Robert, and Sorensen, Georg, Introduction to international relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999)
• Lukes, Steven, Power: A radical View, 2^nd edn, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004)
• Mansbach, Richard, and Rhodes, Edward, Global politics in a changing world: a reader (Boston, MA: Houghton Miffin, 2003)
• Berger, Mark T, ‘The nation-state and the challenge of global capitalism’, Third World Quarterly, Vol 22, No 6, 2001, pp.889-907.
• Buzan, Barry, ‘Rethinking Security after the Cold War’, Cooperation and Conflict, Vol 32, No 1, 1997, pp.5-28.
• Kerr, Peter, ‘Saved from extinction: evolutionary theorising, politics and the state’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations’, Vol 4, No 2, June 2002, pp.330-358.
• Mathews, Jessica T, ‘Power Shift’, Foreign Affairs, Vol 76, No 1, January / February 1997, pp.50-66.
• Opp, Karl-Dieter, ‘Decline of the Nation State? How the European Union Creates National and Sub-National Identifications’, Social Forces, Vol 84, No 2, December 1997, pp.653-680.
• Schmidt, Viven A, ‘The New World Order, Incorporated: The Rise of Business and Decline of the Nation State’, Daedalus, Vol 124, No 2, Spring 1995.
• Van Creveld, Martin, ‘The Fate of the State’, Parameters: US Army War College Quarterly, Vol XXVI, No 1, Spring 1996, pp.4-18.
• Wilson, Graham, ‘In a State?’, Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration’, Vol 13, No 2, April 2000, pp.235-253.
• Wikipedia encyclopaedia, Power (Sociology), http://en.wikipedia.org/wik/Power_%28sociology%29, accessed 09 February 2008.

All of the essays in the "Free Essays" section were written by students and then submitted to us to display and help others. Thanks to all the students who have submitted their essays to us. You should not hand in our essays as your own. We do not condone plagiarism!