Lecture 18 - State and Globalization

Lecture 18 - State and Globalization - Lecture 18 Mark 2:...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Lecture 18 Mark 2: State and Globalization Unit introduction Today we begin a new unit of the course, moving away from the mainly economic concerns of the past seven or so weeks and starting a new range of questions involving the relationship between globalization and the state. These questions will include such things as, can the national framework adequately regulate a transnational economy? To what extent is the transnational economy disciplining the state, in the sense that investment rewards states that follow investment-friendly policies, and shuns states that do not? Is the state giving way to supranational organizations, including the UN, the regional entities such as the European Union, and even transnational NGOs like Oxfam or Amnesty? Are certain states better adapted to the age of globalization than others? Is the era of globalization an era that promotes democracy or not? These are the questions that will occupy us for the next four weeks. The Westphalian state The pre-Westphalian Era. To set the stage for discussions of the state, I want to begin by describing the rise and heyday of the modern state in Europe between 1648 and 1914. There were at least the beginnings of state development in other parts of the world, and in some cases far more than beginnings. But the early success of the state system and the Industrial Revolution in Europe meant that its politics and its economics came to dominate most of the rest of the world during the colonial era. Thus, we start with state development in Europe. In the medieval period and continuing through 1648, the European state—then referred to as the kingdom—had to share the political arena with both larger entities, the Holy Roman Empire and the Papacy and with smaller entities, the feudal fiefs and the free cities. The change that took place in the mid-seventeenth century was that the smaller and larger entities were eliminated, leaving the states as the only important actors on the geopolitical stage. If you go back to the year 1200, let’s say, there were many different levels and kinds of authority to whom allegiance of one sort or another was due. There was the local landowner, probably a lower rank of nobility such as Baron, to whom allegiance was due in the first instance; and not only allegiance, but taxes and rents—in fact the two were more or less indistinguishable; rents and taxes supported the armed men who kept the Baron in power. The local noble ran the local court system, appointed what local officials there were, and from the point of view of the...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 02/18/2010 for the course GEOG 20 taught by Professor Acker during the Fall '08 term at University of California, Berkeley.

Page1 / 11

Lecture 18 - State and Globalization - Lecture 18 Mark 2:...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online