The question of Globalization has become one of the most acute nowadays. Are the ideas of globalization new and how they relate to the nation state question Some consider that the question of globalization is not actually new but revolutionary, as it erase the borders between the states, providing common monetary system, common legislation common trading area. It would be very hard to define whether globalization eroded a state or enforced it as it provided different influence on different countries. It goes without saying that some became more assimilated and some not. It is essential that globalization is one of the most widely discussed questions in the present day world. Contemporary scientists examine it in different ways and it goes without saying that the opinions are different sometimes cardinally different. The question of nation state in the globalization aspect is closely connected with the revolution it provided in Europe for example, certainly it deals with the question of the invention novelty. Ellen Woods closely connectsthye meaning of globalization with capitalism – universal capitalism to be exact: “The fact that capitalism is a global system organized nationally means two things, both of which are amply demonstrated in the articles that follow: on the one hand, its systemic weaknesses and contradictions, its endemic crises, are not national in origin. They are global, and they are inherent in the system, rooted in capitalism’s basic laws of motion. This means that no specific national policy caused them, nor can any specific national strategy resolve them. On the other hand, because global capitalism is nationally organized and irreducibly dependent on national states, national economies and national states can still be the primary terrain of anti-capitalist struggle” (Wood, 1999). She considers that the national question as well the national state loses its meaning and idea. The questions and problems become more global and they need global solution on the international level. The national question is falling into decay. A good illustration to her theory is European Union, which united different capitalist and post-soviet countries, with different system and history of politics and economics and now they learn how to cooperate with each other. The same times some the states try not to lose their national identity by keeping their traditional monetary system (the United Kingdom, for example). But the same times these countries participate in different programs provided by Euro Union to the members and got to correspond to the certain demands. It means that participation in the global programs and institutions does not suppose only benefits such as free trading, but also has certain rules and claims for every member.
Kenneth Walt support another point of view: “Dispute the claim that global interconnectedness has intensified, noting that the current global system has not even attained the level of integration that existed during the pre–World War I era. Waltz also contends that governments now intervene much more than they did in the pre–World War I era. The points raised in this argument are valid. However, they do not repudiate the fact that capitalism has now resumed a vigorous pace of global integration that was interrupted during the interwar period (1918–1939) and during much of the Cold War era, when the Keynesian welfare state system was predominant in the Western world and the socialist system prevailed in the East. The levels of integration of the global system of production and state disengagement from economic activity may not yet have exceeded the levels of 1910, but they are rapidly intensifying and are likely to soon surpass the levels of 1910 if globalization continues at its present pace” (Friedman, Thomas, 1999). The state system predominating during so called ‘interwar years’ of the 20th centuries has seriously influenced and it will be possible to say that it has created new vision on the globalization, nationally oriented. Keeping of the monetary tradition and being the same part an active participant of globalization process is the best illustration. People now are more concentrated on their unique identity. Being Europeans they do not forget about their ethnic origin. Probably the most interesting is that a number of people living in Euro Union still identify themselves as Spaniards, French, and Italians but not as the Europeans. The Euro Union governmental structures understand this problem and keep on promoting the idea of the United Europe and global identity as the Europeans, but not as dwellers of separated countries.
The intellectual tradition of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman was the one that has a strong connection with the ideas and supposed new ideas of globalization, making a stress on the fact that national state has evolved into another form of social organization – global: “In Hayek’s view, for instance, concerns of social inequality are mere vestiges of the bygone era of primitive communalism that need to be weeded out and replaced by individual freedom and responsibility, irrespective of the problems of inequality and poverty. There has also been a surge in the perception that national economies have converged into a single space of global economy and that there is only one appropriate form of social organization. A single world economy is far from being a reality” (Hayek, 1973). This question has serious advocacy for such perspective. It goes without saying that globalization in such measurements as it is observed now have never occurred before. The previous attempts of globalization were rather oppressive, they promoted implantation of the foreign culture and loose of national identity of the states. Other researches, supposing that the ideas of globalizations are not new appeal to historical terms and liberal order, they consider the ideas of globalization appearing being predominance of the 19th century “globalization represents is not new, as it was the predominant order in the nineteenth century, roughly between 1840 and 1914. However, globalization represents a significant departure from the global order that prevailed between the outbreak of World War I and the end of the Cold War” (Hayek, 1973). Hence they do not take into account the fact that evolutionary concept of globalization examines the development of capitalism its growth and significance within this global processes national identity of the state. The globalization processes dictate strict order but they do not oppress cultural and ethnic identity of the states. The European Union with all its controversies is still the best illustration. Yes they promote the idea of the united Europe and the term European, hence they do not try to make people and states’ governments forget about their roots. They call up to share experience and economical traditions. Equality is the main principle of current globalization processes and that is the main reason the members of European commission and other European Union institutions are represented by different nations participating in the Euro Union. It goes without saying that the whole political system is build up on the sharing (despite the strict demands, which are also a part of equality in Euro Union) – every country is being in the chair due the appropriate term as the others do. This term is equal for everyone. It goes without saying that the theory of evolution is quite good for the globalization process characterization, as it helps to understand easily the whole developmental processes and why now the national state enforcement is so important (as it helps to understand that equality does not mean reduce of identity).
The analysis of the factors that promoted globalization could also give some reasonable facts to answer the question why national state is promoted now more than it was reduced from the beginning of the processes. As well as the previous question, the ideas of globalization promotion are also controversial, some insist on the fact that technological development factor was the most significant: “technological advances have facilitated the intensification of interconnectedness. It is not likely, however, that technological changes, by themselves, would bring about globalization without a corresponding ideological homogenization or the growing disengagement of the state from economic activity that is currently underway. It is not clear, for example, that capital mobility would come about as a result of technological changes alone, although advances in communication technology, along with the deregulation of capital flows, have enhanced capital mobility” (Waltz, Kenneth , 1999). Another, controversial point of view, deals with development of market forces. Those who support this idea consider that globalization was raised by the development of market forces: “an economic system cannot be realized without a corresponding political system, and globalization is shaped by the acquiescence (if not active support) of governments, especially the U.S. hegemonic power and other advanced countries, as Thomas Friedman notes. Adherents of the market forces argument claim that globalization is forced upon governments and that these governments cannot stand in the way of globalization without incurring severe costs. Powerful capital interests are certainly in a position to punish governments that adopt fiscal and monetary policies that adversely impact their goals. The government of South Africa, for example, can be punished by capital flight if it insists on implementing its agenda of social reform outlined in its Reconstruction and Development Program. However, the masses of South Africa are likely to sustain heavier costs if the government abandons its mandate for social reforms in order to comply with the demands of globalization” (Friedman, Thomas, 1999). The technical aspect in the globalization question in the present day world provides a inclusive policy. The opinions and regards to the conditions should be included as it is impossible to promote certain internal processes without agreement with international community. The North Korea question is the good illustration. The government of the country understands that the country depends on the facilities it is developing and how important are international relation for this isolated country. Globalization let it participate in the negotiation process, but not at the immediate war. The countries that take part in the negotiations should take into account policy promoted by the local government. That is international politics – global politics, which is promoting identity alongside with the erasing of borders, zones of free trading, travelling and many other uniting principles. Globalization of the present day world respects the national state and the representatives of each nation and disrespect expansion policy on the global market, providing equal competence. It goes without saying that globalization has already started and it is just the beginning of the process and what will be further development and how the attitude to the national state question would be developed is still unknown