Between retreat and continuing centrality? Critically assess the role of the state in globalization.
Academic analysis of the impact of globalization on the state has involved controversial debates. The initiator of these debates was the hyper-globalist school, which began in the late 1960s when Kindleberger argues, "the nation state is just about through as an economic unit" (Hey, 2011: 312-313). Proponents of this view have argued that the role of the state is diminished under globalization. Further, they predict that globalization will result in the demise of the nation state. However, the opposing view argues that the state is still a viable actor in international relations and international political economy and questions the nature of globalization. This essay will assess whether the role of the state is in retreat. It will be suggested that the state remains central in handling national and international governance. It will first sort out the definition will be used and the emphasize in this essay, and then the thesis of hyper-globalism will be outlined. After that it will be examined whether or not the role of the state is in retreat by accessing: the extent to which globalization is truly a globalized phenomenon; the extent to which the role of the state is not constrained and extended by such a phenomenon; and the extent to which globalization is a result of state behavior. .
Globalization has long been a controversial subject. This has partly been because of the slippery meaning of the term 'globalization' itself, which has been understood differently in various academic fields. In the research of international political economy (IPE), globalization is mainly taken to refer to economic globalization, which has been defined by Gilpin (2001: 364) as 'the integration of world economy' in which the expansion of global commerce, finance, and production allow the cross-border flows of investment, and goods.