Business research news Return to previous page
Article Released Mon-16th-April-2007 21:05 GMT
Contact: N Janardhan Institution: Gulf Research Center
 No More States? Globalization, National Self-Determination, and Terrorism

In the twentieth century nationalism has been considered a disintegrative force embraced by peoples who fought for independence from colonial rule. The number of states in the international system grew rapidly as a result, from 50 states in 1900 to about 200. This volume suggests that few new states will form in the next generation.


Author: Richard N. Rosecrance and Arthur A. Stein
Publisher: Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006

In the twentieth century nationalism has been considered -- largely -- a disintegrative force embraced by peoples who fought for independence from colonial rule. The number of states in the international system grew rapidly as a result, from 50 states in 1900 to about 200 at the present. This volume, however, suggests that few new states will form in the next generation. This is so due to three main reasons: First, metropolitan governments, when faced with nationalist dissent, are becoming increasingly capable of buying off the discontented or inducing them to submit. Second, discontented voters have now another alternative ? a safety valve for the metropole: they can migrate to another country. Third, international opinion and Great Power support for self-determination and the creation of new states have lessened.

This volume takes a varied look at how globalization affects the likelihood of state dis/integration. In the introductory chapter, Richard Rosecrance, Etel Solingen, and Arthur Stein raise compelling issues such as the likely progress (or regress) of globalization; the mobility of goods, capital and information in the process of globalization; the possibility of control on the effects of globalization; the correlation between globalization and interdependence; and the social, metropolitan, and international responses to globalization. In their definition, globalization is the growing mobility of factors of production -- capital, labor, information, and goods --between countries. According to them, whether globalization in various regions will produce a negative, separatist reaction will depend on what national and international authorities do to contain the response. Rosecrance, Solingen, and Stein are optimistic that globalization may help to coopt potential dissidents. They posit that while many factors condition the acceptance or rejection of continuing metropolitan rule of dissident provinces, four main variables influence the dependent region: (1) the degree of globalization; (2) the acceptance of globalization by metropolitan rulers; (3) the acceptance of globalization by major international actors; and (4) the dependent province's attitude toward globalization. They hypothesize that the most likely case for independence would occur when the metropolitan government is isolated in its stance on globalization. Independence would also be more likely when preceded by a crisis enveloping the central government. In addition, they think that the policy of the metropole is an important variable in charting the acceptance of globalization.


Associated links

Keywords associated to this article: Keyword
Create Account...