No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
Whereas the first round of our debate on globalization that appeared in the previous issue of the Review focused on definitional issues, this second round deals with the likely effects of globalization on state capacity and action. Contrary to the widespread tendency to consider that globalization will undermine state action by reinforcing competition among states, contributors to this second round offer a more elaborate view. Based on different analytical perspectives, they all come to a similar conclusion that globalization will not necessarily deprive states of their capacity to act but may even have, in some cases, positive net gains.
In the first contribution, Fritz Scharpf calls for a finer-grained evaluation of the effects of globalization relying on objects of systems competition and on types of state regulation. His general conclusion is twofold. First, given the variety of empirical situations on (and within) these two dimensions one should not expect uniform outcomes. Second, competition for locational advantage will not prevent states from maintaining, or perhaps even from reinforcing, national regulations and this with no or little economic costs.
The second contribution, by Martin Rhodes, focuses on the impact of globalization on West European welfare states. Rhodes argues that increased pressure arising from external competition does not inevitably lead to a loss in state steering capacity or to "neo-liberal convergence". Instead, empirical evidence from various countries suggests that new forms of solidarity and the renewal of corporatist schemes might enhance state control over labor market regulations and the reform of the welfare state.
Finally, the third contribution, by Peter Evans, expands the discussion to the likely future forms of the State. Evans argues that even though most economic actors still acknowledge the need for competent public authority, they might be blinded by their cognitive neo-liberal bias and thus foster the unintended destruction of the state. Evans considers, however, that a likely alternative might be a mutual empowerment between state structures and organized civil society, which would preserve the delivery of public goods by the state.
๐ SIMILAR VOLUMES