The Declining Authority of States

The Declining Authority of States
by Susan Strange

Strange discusses the decline of the power of the state. She notes that in current times, with the power changing location, many of our previously accepted academic theories do not apply any more. She proposes that we re-evaluate many of the assumptions of conventional social science. Strange argues that the "impresonal forces of world markets" are now more powerful than the states in which power belongs. This may not, however, be very evident because the power of the state in people's everyday lives has been stronger than in years past, for example the provision of employment services. She proposes that the state is less effective in matters that the markets have never been able to provide; security against violence, stable money for trade investment, a clear system of law and the means to enforce it, and a sufficiency of public goods. It is interesting to find that the governments of established states are suffering, however more societies than ever are in line to have their own state. The desire to reach ethnic or cultural autonomy is present, however there have not been political means to satisfy this desire within an integrated world market economy. This appears to only be a western phenomenon, and it is noticed that the Asian state has been able to achieve economic growth, industrialisation, an modernised infrastructure and raised living standards. Much growth on a global scale, and a lot of the cause of the shift in the state-market balance of power, is accredited to swift technological changes. This is key in understanding the troubles that the modern state faces. States face the need to pour massive amounts of money into technological research in order to compete with other countries on the basic wealth level as well as the nuclear level. The repercussions of credit-creation have up until now been vastly neglected from a political standpoint. At this point, the institutions that create and market credit in the world economy are only regarded in terms of their impact on the ability of government to "borrow abroad to finance development or the shortfall between revenue and spending, or between export earnings and import bills." All is accredited to the fact that governments are victims to the market economy. Power has been lost from the sum of power available between capable and incapable states, leaving a "gapling hole of non-authority, ungovernance."

I believe what Strange argues is true, that states have lost much power and states are unable to control as much because the market has taken much of the power. This leads me to reflect on the emergence of transnational corporations and their new-found power on a global level. It is important to recognize these changes as we look ahead to our future, one which will include both these declining states and what I think of as emerging corporate powers. My hope is that some day we will be able to create a "political" entity or institution that can monitor the power of non-state powers and maintain the ability of states to control their own situations. In doing so, these states may keep social programs and work for the hopeful goal of improving the human condition on a global scale. We do not want the conscienceless entities of the market to control the well-being of human beings and I am hopeful that we will recognize the importance of change on a global scale so that individuals and people as a collective again have power over such influential changes.

The Modern World-System as a Capitalist World-Economy

The Modern World-System as a Capitalist World-Economy
by Immanuel Wallerstein

Wallerstein's article was focused around the various aspects of what makes a Capitalist World-Economy. This "world-system", which originated in the sixteenth century, is located primarily in Europe and the Americas. Wallerstein defines world-economy as "a large geographic zone within which there is a division of labor and hence significant internal exchange of basic or essential goods as well as flows of capital and labor." It is important to recognize that this system is not bound by a single political structure but by many; the political structures of various countries of the world. Capitalism is defined as the system that focuses primarily on the endless accumulation of capital. The goal of this system is to continuously gain capital, only to continue accumulating capital in an endless cycle of establishing wealth. Wallerstein goes on to emphasize the need for a market that is not totally free in order for capitalism to continue. This is necessary in order to maintain interest of producers because in a truly free market the buyers can talk down the sellers. Capitalism has been contextualized as the only world-economy that has been successful, perhaps because it is the one that took root and has stuck and become consolidated. Wallerstein also discusses the importance of monopolies within the capitalist system. Monopolies allow producers to produce products at a cheap cost and sell them at a high price in order to gain a greater profit. The use of a patent will often enable a company to create a monopoly because it has the rights to sell a particular product. One important point Wallerstein makes is that the "core" states (those controlled by quasi-monopolies) tend to group themselves in a few states, whereas the "peripheral" states (those that are truly competative) tend to be more scattered.
I think it is important to recognize amount of wealth obtained by those core states.

I recognize America and some European countries as the core states, and those third world countries that are often exploited for resources and raw materials as the periphery. This relates to what has happened as neoliberalism has emerged. As finance markets are de-regulated, companies are able to take up larger parts of the market and become monopolies. Many of these companies already have an advantage in size and productivity, and as they are de-regulated they are able to continue to truly be a part of the capitalist world-economy. We see many transnational corporations essentially gaining as much capital as possible, in an endless greed for wealth and prosperity. On a day-to-day economic scale, this means higher standards of living and more market power for those who own a part of these corporations. It was pointed out as well that the companies that were smaller and could not compete often had little power to influence the state to help them. It is evident even on local levels that this is true. For example, nearly every town in America has a Walmart within driving distance. This places more pressure on local small business owners to match prices (which are lower because of the mass production of large corporations) and often these businesses cannot continue to compete. As these small stores go out of business, I think it is important to recognize the social implications. Products consumed are homogeneous to an extent, and diversity of products is limited to those made overseas. I see this as a possibility for local traditions and arts to decline as well as a break-down of community ties among consumers. We become less than human in a way, and those that relied on the business of the community are left with little or no say. I see our society in some ways becoming solely people of consumption, with little or no conscience about the impacts of our purchases.


पास
Mandy Simmons