A Case for Removing Personal Income Tax

Is Globalization undermining state sovereignty?

Globalization is a neo-colonial tool which undermines state sovereignty by diluting borders, restricting government control on domestic policies and increasing the influence of powerful nations upon weaker ones.  

Introduction

Globalisation is the process of integration of nations or its people through the increased flow of money, ideas and culture across international borders. “It refers to all the processes by which peoples of the world are incorporated into a single world society, a global society.”[1] While it is primarily an economic phenomenon, it nonetheless has social implications due to the vast exchange of social ideas and cultural practices. It is a complex concept which has impact on various areas of everyday life. Nations along with international organisations like the UN, WTO, IMF are all actors on the international arena and are both influenced by globalisation as well as contribute to it simultaneously.

Sovereignty on the other hand is the actual control over a state, exercised by an authority organized within this state.[2] It can be described as the territorial integrity of the nation-state, its economic independence, self-governance and autonomy in shaping its own policies. Clearly, sovereignty as a concept has many facets to it, just like Globalisation as a concept. To decide whether globalization undermines state sovereignty or not, it is necessary to analyse how the different aspects of globalisation impact the different facets of a state’s sovereignty. The second question that needs to be looked into is who actually perpetuates globalisation, and who actually benefits from it?

Impacts of Globalisation

A state has the responsibility to protect the economy or domestic policies from external meddling. A central theme of sovereignty is complete self-governance of nations and their ability to exercise authority over their population within their borders, and frame policies and laws independently. In essence, there isn’t just a territorial border that exists, but also an economic and governance one. Globalisation seeks to make, or at least lands up making these borders more porous.
Since the concept of globalisation is more often than not perpetuated by larger and wealthier nations, these same nations are the real beneficiaries of this system, generally at the expense of poorer nations. This relationship is created when economically weaker nations require money either in the form of economic aid or investment for infrastructure, development or merely to stimulate economic growth. Such aid is either provided by wealthier nations or international organisations like the United Nations, IMF and the World Bank. These nations as well as international organisations land up acting as pressure groups that in many ways influence decision making of states. For instance, back in 1991, even though India’s move to liberalise its economy was necessary and long overdue, there was active pressure from the IMF as it refused credit or bailout unless India opened up its economy.

Buildings in Africa are looking alarmingly Chinese

A current example of the extent of control even nations can exercise over economically weaker ones is that of China in various African nations. In cities like Accra, Addis Ababa and Kigali, the architecture of public and even government buildings is looking increasingly Chinese.
This is because China has pumped millions of dollars into poor African nations like Ethiopia. Furthermore, Chinese companies have undertaken hundreds of development projects, ranging from roads to governmental buildings. Ethiopia has been gradually aligning itself closer to China in multilateral forums, and Mandarin is slowly but surely becoming the third largest spoken language in Ethiopia as Universities across the nation have started including Mandarin in the course curriculum.

This is how globalisation can be used as a neo-colonial tool, helping powerful nations expand their influence and impact decision-making in a very covert manner. Chinese investment and development projects have helped expand China’s soft power through the introduction of Mandarin and Chinese architecture, shifted Ethiopia strategically closer to China, and effectively made Ethiopia’s economy largely dependent on China.
In essence, China’s presence in Ethiopia has undermined the Ethiopian state’s sovereignty. [3]

Many supporters of globalisation assert that it is necessary and required for economic growth and the subsequent upliftment of people by increasing their standard of living. This is in fact not globalisation but internationalism. Internationalism calls for greater economic cooperation between nations. It pre-dates globalisation as a concept as the latter is in fact a very recent and modern phenomenon. Internationalism in this context is enough for the smooth flow of investment and infrastructure as the necessary fuel to stimulate the economy of a nation.

Pooled Sovereignty and the European Union

Transnational entities like the European Union are in a way by-products of globalisation. It is based on the concept of Pooled Sovereignty which is an aspect of Political Globalisation. In the context of the European Union, economic policies are broadly similar and are framed by an elective body comprising leaders from all the member states. The economic turbulence in Greece had ripple effect on other European nations due to the interdependence of their economies.
 Borders between member states are very flexible and transit of individuals and goods is generally easy. This raises serious security related issues, and questions surrounding the lack of background checks conducted of individuals entering a nation. Even though there is an elective body comprising of all member states, the amount of control Germany exercises over the EU members is more than it should be in an apparent balanced coming together of several nations.
There was outcry from various European politicians towards the ‘refugee-quotas’ imposed upon different EU members at the outbreak of the refugee crisis. Hungary and Slovakia even went to court against the imposition of these quotas.[4] This was clearly a move that undermined the independent decision making of the states within the European Union. Since membership of a nation requires the loosening of borders between member states, membership in itself signifies that a nation gives up a part of its sovereignty to another institution or body, with Brussels as its de fact capital.

Transnational companies are also major players in a globalised world and play a vital role in the economies of states. They create interdependency between economies of two or more nations and hence, an economic spill over in one party of the world has ramifications on another part of the world. After the 2008 crisis, economists have called for greater role of the State in the economy to avoid economic fall outs and crises.

Regional arrangements like the NATO influence the foreign policy of its member nations. It becomes difficult for a member of NATO to open up diplomatic relations independently of the NATO, especially if majority of the NATO members deem the nation a threat. NATO membership thus requires its members to align their foreign policies as much as possible.

Counter-Movements and Resistance

Protectionism was previously associated with closed economies and mainly left-wing political rhetoric. In the recent past, however, right wing political groups have embraced protectionism as one of their main campaign agendas and subsequent political goals. Their rise was fuelled by the refugee crisis and the surrounding paranoia regarding security issues and possible rise in terrorism. These political parties are also highly Euroskeptic and call for either dismantling of the system or their own exit from the Union. They see major lack of sovereignty and blame globalisation as the cause for these impacts on their state sovereignty.

Globalisation in the American context

The United States belongs where it is, as the sole hegemon, more due to its soft power than its hard power. While military-might is no doubt required for maintaining a state’s dominance in international relations, its cultural influence is even more crucial in maintaining and expanding its influence. McDonald’s, KFC, Hollywood etc all help the United States in this regard. The more number of people live the so-called ‘American way of life’ by consuming their fast food, wearing their clothes, and even adapting their understanding of everyday culture, the longer the United States stays where it is.

The election of Donald Trump, however, has created uncertainty. An individual who has openly criticised Globalisation and declared himself as an isolationist, he has no doubt raised questions as to how America would expand its soft power and maintain the international status quo.

While the United States’ status as the hegemon is slowly waning, leading to a shift from a largely unipolar world to a multi polar world, there are power vacuums being created. China is an emerging global power which is using globalisation to expand and re assert its control as far as Africa.

Conclusion

Globalisation doesn’t create an equal world and allows more powerful nations to benefit more, while the lesser powerful ones land up becoming dependent on them.These economically weaker nations shape their policies based on conditions imposed by larger nations or international organizations like the IMF and World Bank. As discussed above, the case of Ethiopia is a clear sign that Globalisation provides a trade-off of sorts between economic benefits and integrity of the sovereignty of the nation. It can be said that China has effectively ‘bought’ Ethiopia’s sovereignty from them, and slowly but surely creeped into various aspects of Ethiopian life and governance.

While economically weaker nations become subversive to more powerful ones, their culture also gets greatly influenced by the dominating nation. This is in a way cultural imperialism. A nation also has an inherent duty to preserve its cultural identity, and this can be attributed as part of its sovereign functions.

The loosening of border control is almost a pre-condition to globalization and doing so would undermine the concept of the nation state. These ‘borders’ can be territorial and economic in nature, and the dilution of these borders is the undermining of that state’s sovereignty.
A nation state is best equipped to deal with the issues and problems facing it, and taking away the ultimate authority of that state would make it difficult for ground level development or the ability of the state to deal with the issues at hand. The answer to the second question raised at the climax of the introduction is that the same nations or entities that perpetuate globalisation are the same nations or entities that benefit from it.

Bibliography

·         Katherine Wall, The end of the welfare state? How globalization is affecting state sovereignty

---

[1] Albrow, Martin and Elizabeth King (eds.) (1990). Globalization, Knowledge and Society London: Sage. 

[2] Krasner, Professor Stephen D. (2001). Problematic Sovereignty: Contested Rules and Political Possibilities. pp. 6–12

[3] https://www.archdaily.com/640069/facing-east-chinese-urbanism-in-africa

[4] https://www.euractiv.com/section/justice-home-affairs/news/hungary-and-slovakias-case-against-refugee-quotas-gets-day-in-court/