Debates about globalisation | Edexcel A-Level Politics
Updated: 3 days ago
For Specification 9PL0
Edexcel A-Level Politics | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 60–70 minutes
Globalisation is widely accepted as a major feature of contemporary politics, but there is much less agreement about what it means for states. This Debates about globalisation A-Level Politics revision page examines competing hyperglobalist, sceptical and transformationalist perspectives, alongside realist and liberal interpretations of globalisation. The central issue is whether greater interconnectedness is replacing the sovereign nation-state, merely constraining it, or leaving state power largely intact. This builds directly on globalisation and the state system [Globalisation and the state system] and prepares you to assess the wider consequences of globalisation.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Explain the hyperglobalist interpretation of globalisation.
Explain the globalisation sceptic interpretation and contrast it with hyperglobalism.
Identify the transformationalist position as a required perspective within the specification.
Compare realist and liberal interpretations of globalisation.
Analyse the implications of globalisation for the nation-state and national sovereignty.
Evaluate whether globalisation has fundamentally weakened the sovereign state.
Revision Notes 📚
What is the debate about globalisation?
The Edexcel specification requires students to study:
the debate between hyperglobalisers
globalisation sceptics
transformationalists
the associated realist and liberal views
the implications of globalisation for the nation-state
the implications of globalisation for national sovereignty
These perspectives disagree primarily over the extent and significance of globalisation.
The disagreement is not simply about whether connections exist between states. The central questions are:
How extensive is globalisation?
How different is the contemporary world from the traditional state system?
Are national borders becoming less significant?
Has sovereignty been seriously weakened?
Are states becoming less important than international organisations and other actors?
These questions rely on your earlier understanding of the process of globalisation [The process of globalisation].
The key concepts behind the debate
Before comparing perspectives, remember three specification definitions.
Globalisation is the emergence of a complex web of interconnectedness in many forms.
A nation-state is an autonomous political community held together by citizenship and nationality.
Sovereignty is absolute and unlimited power and authority. The specification also describes national sovereignty as the state's absolute power over its citizens and subjects.
The debate can therefore be reduced to one central issue:
If globalisation creates deeper connections beyond national borders, can the state still exercise absolute and independent authority?
Different perspectives give very different answers.
The hyperglobalist position
Hyperglobalisers take the strongest view of the significance of globalisation.
The 2020 Edexcel mark scheme identifies three major features of this position:
globalisation is new, real and everywhere
globalisation is creating an integrated global economy, with the prospect of prosperity for all
sovereignty is becoming less relevant as the nation-state declines and a global society develops
Hyperglobalisers therefore see globalisation as a fundamental transformation of politics.
Globalisation is extensive
Hyperglobalisers argue that globalisation is not simply a minor increase in international contact.
Economic, cultural and political globalisation create increasingly extensive connections between states and societies.
The traditional model:
separate sovereign states
becomes increasingly replaced by:
interconnected economies ↔ international institutions ↔ societies ↔ global networks
For hyperglobalisers, this is sufficiently extensive to alter the nature of the state system itself.
An integrated global economy
A central hyperglobalist argument is that economic globalisation is creating an increasingly integrated global economy.
The 2020 mark scheme identifies:
the movement towards freer trade
the development of organisations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and World Trade Organization (WTO)
associated economic growth
as evidence that can support the hyperglobalist interpretation.
This connects directly with global economic governance studied later in [The IMF and World Bank] and [WTO, G7/G8 and G20].
The reasoning is:
more cross-border economic activity
↓
greater economic integration
↓
greater dependence upon global markets and institutions
↓
less capacity for states to operate completely independently
↓
declining significance of traditional economic sovereignty
Declining significance of national borders
Hyperglobalism also challenges the importance of borders.
Economic, cultural and political connections increasingly operate across them.
If:
goods move internationally
capital moves internationally
cultural ideas cross borders
international institutions influence policy
states participate in international legal arrangements
then the state has less ability to isolate political and economic life within its borders.
Hyperglobalisers therefore argue that the traditional distinction between purely "domestic" and "international" politics becomes less significant.
Hyperglobalism and sovereignty
The biggest implication of hyperglobalism is its view of sovereignty.
Edexcel's 2020 mark scheme states that hyperglobalisers see sovereignty as becoming less relevant, alongside the decline of the nation-state and emergence of global society.
This does not simply mean that governments sometimes face restrictions.
The hyperglobalist argument is much stronger:
globalisation fundamentally undermines the traditional sovereign state.
The chain of reasoning is:
Global interconnectedness becomes increasingly deep.
States become dependent on actors and processes beyond their borders.
International organisations and global rules become more important.
Governments lose some ability to act entirely independently.
National sovereignty becomes increasingly difficult to maintain in its traditional absolute form.
The nation-state therefore becomes less significant.
This is the strongest interpretation of the decline of sovereignty.
Hyperglobalism and political globalisation
Political globalisation also supports the hyperglobalist position.
Edexcel defines political globalisation as the growing importance of international organisations.
Institutions that operate beyond a single state provide evidence that political decision making increasingly occurs at international or global levels.
This can affect:
economic governance
international law
human rights
security
environmental problems
The more significant these institutions become, the easier it is to argue that individual governments no longer possess completely unrestricted authority.
Hyperglobalism and international problems
The case for hyperglobalism may also be supported by problems that cannot easily be managed by one state alone.
The Global Politics specification identifies challenges including:
poverty
conflict
human rights
environmental degradation
and requires students to examine the extent to which globalisation can address them.
These issues provide a possible argument for increased international co-operation:
global problems → require cross-border responses → international institutions grow → purely national solutions become less significant
You examine this more directly in globalisation and contemporary global issues [Globalisation and contemporary global issues].
The globalisation sceptic position
Globalisation sceptics reject many of the stronger claims made by hyperglobalisers.
The 2020 Edexcel mark scheme identifies several central sceptical arguments:
developments may represent regionalism rather than genuine globalisation
there is no convincing movement towards global capitalism benefiting everyone
national borders are not becoming less important
states retain sovereignty internally and externally
states can still choose which international institutions to join and when to obey them
Sceptics therefore argue that claims about the decline of the state have been exaggerated.
Sceptics: regionalisation rather than globalisation
One important sceptical claim is that supposedly global developments may actually be regional.
Instead of the world becoming one integrated global system, states can form regional organisations and blocs.
The 2020 mark scheme notes that some regionalism can be defensive, with states co-operating to secure prosperity for members rather than creating a genuinely borderless global economy.
This produces a very different interpretation.
A hyperglobaliser may see:
regional co-operation = evidence that national sovereignty is being overtaken by wider political structures
A sceptic may see:
regional co-operation = sovereign states working together to advance their own interests
The existence of regional organisations therefore does not automatically prove that the state is disappearing.
You develop this debate further in regionalism [Regionalism].
Sceptics: states still control participation
The sceptical interpretation places particular emphasis on state choice.
Edexcel's 2020 mark scheme notes that states can:
choose which institutions to join
decide how far they will comply
retain sovereignty internally and externally
This is a powerful challenge to hyperglobalism.
If sovereign governments themselves decide to participate in international arrangements, then international co-operation may actually depend upon state sovereignty rather than replace it.
The argument becomes:
States remain sovereign.
States choose to enter international institutions.
International institutions depend upon state participation.
States retain considerable control over their relationships with those institutions.
Globalisation therefore operates through states rather than making them irrelevant.
Sceptics: the international system remains anarchical
The sceptical interpretation also connects with the idea of international anarchy.
International anarchy means that there is no universal sovereign or worldwide government.
The 2020 mark scheme argues that post-sovereign governance has not emerged. Instead, states retain sovereignty within an anarchical system.
This creates a strong sceptical argument:
international institutions exist
but
no world government exists
therefore
states remain the ultimate political units
Global governance should therefore not automatically be mistaken for the end of sovereignty.
Sceptics and the continuing significance of borders
Sceptics also reject the claim that borders are becoming politically unimportant.
National governments still exercise political authority.
The existence of:
international organisations
economic interdependence
cultural exchange
regional institutions
does not necessarily mean the end of the nation-state.
The 2020 examiner report highlighted stronger sceptical answers that explained how country borders remained important and how states continued to exercise sovereignty within a largely anarchical international system.
Hyperglobalisers and sceptics compared
Issue | Hyperglobalisers | Globalisation sceptics |
Scale of globalisation | Globalisation is new, real and extensive | Claims about globalisation are exaggerated |
Economy | Increasingly integrated global economy | No clear global capitalism benefiting all |
Borders | Becoming less significant | Remain important |
Regionalism | Can demonstrate movement beyond individual states | May be more significant than genuine globalisation |
Nation-state | Declining in importance | Remains central |
Sovereignty | Becoming less relevant | States retain internal and external sovereignty |
International organisations | Evidence of growing global governance | Ultimately dependent upon sovereign states |
Overall view | Globalisation transforms the traditional state system | Traditional state-centred politics remains highly significant |
This comparison was directly relevant to the 2020 Paper 3B assessment. The mark scheme made clear that candidates needed to explicitly contrast the two perspectives to reach the highest level.
The transformationalist position
The Edexcel specification explicitly requires the debate between hyperglobalisers, globalisation sceptics and transformationalists.
Students should nevertheless recognise that transformationalists are explicitly named as one of the three required positions in specification section 1.2.2. A full explanation should not be invented from assumptions where the supplied Edexcel material does not define it.
Realist and liberal interpretations of globalisation
Edexcel requires realism and liberalism to be applied throughout Global Politics rather than studied only as isolated theories.
This makes globalisation an important area for theoretical comparison.
The specification later defines:
Realism as a broad school of thought holding that world politics remains a field of conflict among actors pursuing power.
Liberalism as a broad school of thought that rejects power politics as the sole outcome of international relations and emphasises mutual benefits and co-operation.
These perspectives produce contrasting interpretations of globalisation.
The realist interpretation
Realism emphasises:
states as the key actors in global politics
state sovereignty
international anarchy
the balance of power
competition and conflict
limited confidence in international organisations
Applied to globalisation, this produces a broadly state-centred interpretation.
States remain the principal actors
Realists regard states as the predominant actors in global politics.
The 2021 mark scheme directly contrasts:
realists, who see states as predominant actors and sovereignty as their central characteristic,
with
liberals, who see a growing role for international organisations, non-state actors and globalisation.
Globalisation may change the environment in which states operate, but realism does not assume that states have ceased to dominate global politics.
Realism and sovereignty
For realists, sovereignty remains fundamental.
The reasoning is:
The international system has no overarching authority.
States must protect their own security and interests.
International organisations do not replace sovereign governments.
States participate where doing so serves their purposes.
Globalisation therefore does not eliminate the central importance of sovereign states.
This places realism relatively close to the sceptical perspective identified by Edexcel's 2020 examiner report.
The report noted that many successful candidates linked globalisation scepticism with realism, particularly through arguments that states remain sovereign and the global system remains largely anarchical.
Realism and international organisations
A realist interpretation is cautious about the importance of international organisations.
Their existence does not necessarily demonstrate that sovereignty has disappeared.
States may:
choose whether to participate
defend their interests within institutions
refuse to follow decisions
prioritise national interests over collective action
This reinforces the sceptical argument that global institutions exist within a state system rather than above it.
The liberal interpretation
Liberalism provides a contrasting interpretation.
The specification identifies liberal ideas including:
optimism concerning human nature
the possibility of harmony
complex interdependence
the likelihood of global governance
the impact and growth of international organisations
These ideas make liberalism much more receptive to claims that globalisation is changing the traditional state system.
Liberalism and complex interdependence
Complex interdependence means that states and their fortunes are inextricably tied together.
This fits naturally with globalisation.
The process can be expressed as:
greater economic, political and cultural connections
↓
states become increasingly interdependent
↓
independent national action becomes more difficult
↓
co-operation becomes increasingly important
↓
international institutions and global governance grow
This helps explain why liberals are generally more optimistic than realists about the consequences of interconnectedness.
Liberalism and international organisations
Liberals see international organisations as more significant than realists do.
They can provide:
mechanisms for co-operation
agreed rules
opportunities for collective action
structures through which common problems can be addressed
The 2021 mark scheme contrasts the realist view of states as predominant actors with the liberal argument that international organisations, non-state actors and globalisation are eroding state power and influence.
This provides a direct link between liberalism and the debate about declining sovereignty.
Liberalism and hyperglobalism
The October 2020 examiner report observed that candidates commonly and successfully linked hyperglobalism with liberal thinkers and liberalism.
Those answers connected:
economic integration
international organisations
declining sovereignty
interconnectedness
growing global co-operation
The liberal position therefore provides strong theoretical support for the argument that political life is moving beyond a purely state-centred model.
Realism and liberalism compared
Issue | Realism | Liberalism |
Main actor | Sovereign state | States remain important, but international organisations and other actors grow in significance |
International system | Anarchical | Increasingly characterised by interdependence and possibilities for governance |
Sovereignty | Fundamental to global politics | Can be eroded by globalisation and international institutions |
Interdependence | Does not remove competition between states | Creates opportunities and incentives for co-operation |
International organisations | Limited by states and national interests | Important mechanisms for co-operation |
Globalisation | Does not remove the centrality of sovereign states | Evidence of growing interconnectedness and global governance |
Closest globalisation perspective in examiner guidance | Globalisation scepticism | Hyperglobalism |
This comparison lays the foundations for the later lessons realism [Realism], liberalism [Liberalism] and realism and liberalism compared [Realism and liberalism compared].
Implications of globalisation for the nation-state
The specification requires students to assess the impact of globalisation and its implications for both the nation-state and national sovereignty.
These are related but distinct.
The nation-state is the political community.
Sovereignty is its ultimate authority.
Globalisation might therefore:
change how important the nation-state is as an actor
affect how independently the state can exercise political authority
Argument: globalisation weakens the nation-state
Several developments support the argument that the nation-state has become less important.
Growing economic interdependence
States participate in increasingly integrated economic relationships.
This may reduce the ability of governments to manage economic life solely through national decisions.
Growing international organisations
Political globalisation means that international organisations have become more important.
Decisions increasingly involve institutions operating beyond individual states.
International law
Globalisation has encouraged the development of international law.
Issues previously regarded as purely domestic may therefore be affected by international obligations and institutions.
Humanitarian intervention
Outside involvement in events within a state can challenge the principle that the state alone controls its internal affairs.
Non-state actors
The specification defines non-state actors as participants in international relations with significant power and influence that are not states.
Their significance creates another possible challenge to a purely state-centred global system.
Argument: the nation-state remains central
The alternative case is also strong.
States create and join international organisations
International organisations usually operate through state participation.
Their importance does not necessarily prove that states are disappearing.
States retain coercive authority
Governments retain central political powers within their own states.
International organisations do not amount to a world government possessing universal political authority over every state.
International anarchy remains
There is still no universal sovereign above states.
This strongly supports the sceptical and realist interpretation.
Globalisation can operate through states
Greater international co-operation does not automatically involve states surrendering their existence or importance.
States can use international and regional organisations to advance their own interests.
The 2020 mark scheme specifically identified state choice over which organisations to join and when to obey them as evidence that sovereignty remains significant.
Implications for national sovereignty
The sovereignty debate is slightly different.
The question is not merely whether states continue to exist.
It is whether they retain absolute and unlimited authority.
Why sovereignty may be eroded
Globalisation may restrict independent state action through:
economic interdependence
international organisations
international law
global governance
humanitarian intervention
regional integration
growing non-state influence
The 2020 examiner material repeatedly connects economic, political and cultural globalisation with pressures upon the traditional model of state sovereignty.
The reasoning is:
more external constraints
↓
less unrestricted state freedom
↓
traditional absolute sovereignty becomes harder to maintain
Why sovereignty may remain
However, a restriction on government freedom is not necessarily the disappearance of sovereignty.
States may still:
control their participation in international institutions
resist international decisions
act according to national interests
maintain political authority within their borders
provide the enforcement power upon which international organisations often depend
This makes the sceptical interpretation particularly important.
Has sovereignty disappeared or changed?
A strong exam answer should avoid simplistic extremes.
The central evaluation is between:
Hyperglobalist view: Globalisation is producing a fundamental decline of sovereignty and the nation-state.
and
Sceptical view: The importance of the sovereign state remains substantial and claims of its decline are overstated.
The supplied Edexcel material also requires a transformationalist perspective, but does not provide sufficient detail to define that third position accurately from the available sources.
Globalisation may affect different aspects of sovereignty differently
An important way to analyse the issue is to examine different dimensions of globalisation separately.
Economic globalisation
Can create strong interdependence and limit purely independent economic action.
Political globalisation
Can increase the significance of international organisations.
International law
Can establish standards beyond purely domestic law.
Cultural globalisation
Can weaken the importance of national boundaries to the movement of ideas and values.
Humanitarian intervention
Can directly challenge exclusive control over internal affairs.
However, none of these automatically demonstrates that the state itself has disappeared.
The June 2022 examiner report found that strong candidates could examine distinct types of globalisation and consider how they could either weaken or strengthen state sovereignty, rather than assuming the relationship worked only in one direction.
Globalisation and regionalism
Regionalism creates another useful test of the sovereignty debate.
A hyperglobalist interpretation may argue that regional organisations demonstrate authority moving away from individual states.
A sceptical or realist response may argue that:
states created those organisations
states participate for their own advantage
regional blocs can strengthen their members collectively
regionalism is not the same thing as a single global system
The 2020 mark scheme specifically used regionalisation as part of the sceptical challenge to hyperglobalism.
This will become important in regionalism [Regionalism] and later study of the European Union.
Globalisation and global governance
Another important distinction is between global governance and world government.
Edexcel defines:
Global governance: a broad and complex process of decision making at a global level.
World government: a common political authority with legislative and executive power over states.
This distinction is extremely useful for evaluating hyperglobalist claims.
Growing global governance clearly suggests that decision making is becoming more internationally connected.
However:
global governance ≠ world government
Therefore, political globalisation can become extensive without necessarily replacing sovereign states with one superior authority.
A useful spectrum of positions
You can organise the debate as a spectrum.
Strongest claim of state decline
Hyperglobalist
Globalisation is extensive and transformative. Sovereignty and the nation-state are becoming less significant.
↓
Transformationalist
↓
Globalisation sceptic
Claims about the decline of states are exaggerated. Borders and sovereignty remain important, and regionalism may be more significant than genuinely global integration.
Strongest claim of continuing state significance
This spectrum helps prevent a common mistake, treating all critics or supporters of globalisation as holding identical arguments.
Applying realism and liberalism to the debate
A useful exam structure is to pair each argument with its theoretical interpretation.
Point 1: international organisations
Liberal interpretation: Their growing importance demonstrates global governance and increased co-operation.
Realist interpretation: They remain dependent upon states and cannot remove the importance of national interest.
Point 2: sovereignty
Liberal interpretation: Globalisation and international organisations erode state power and create complex interdependence.
Realist interpretation: Sovereignty remains the defining characteristic of states within an anarchical system.
Point 3: economic interconnectedness
Liberal interpretation: Interdependence encourages mutual benefits and co-operation.
Realist interpretation: Economic relationships do not eliminate competition between sovereign states.
This form of direct comparison is much stronger than writing a paragraph describing realism followed by an unrelated paragraph describing liberalism.
Exam technique: analyse the disagreement directly
Paper 3 requires comparison.
The 2020 mark scheme made explicit that a response on hyperglobalisers and sceptics could not reach the highest level without explicit contrast.
So avoid:
Paragraph 1: Everything I know about hyperglobalismParagraph 2: Everything I know about scepticism
Instead use:
Hyperglobalisers argue X, whereas sceptics argue Y because...
Then develop the consequence.
For example:
Hyperglobalisers argue that international organisations demonstrate a shift away from state-centred politics, whereas sceptics argue that those institutions remain dependent on sovereign states. This difference matters because the first interpretation suggests political globalisation erodes sovereignty, while the second suggests that international co-operation continues to operate within a state-centred system.
That is comparative AO2 rather than two separate pieces of AO1.
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Hyperglobaliser | A perspective that sees globalisation as new, extensive and creating an increasingly integrated global system in which sovereignty and the nation-state become less significant. | Use when arguing that globalisation fundamentally transforms the state system. |
Globalisation sceptic | A perspective that questions the extent of globalisation, emphasising continuing borders, regionalism and the sovereignty of states. | Use to challenge claims that the nation-state is disappearing. |
Transformationalist | A required perspective named in the Edexcel specification. | Recognise it as the third required position when discussing competing interpretations of globalisation. |
Realism | A school of thought that sees global politics as characterised by actors pursuing power and emphasises sovereign states and international anarchy. | Use to support state-centred interpretations of globalisation. |
Liberalism | A school of thought that emphasises mutual benefits and co-operation rather than treating power politics as the only possible outcome of international relations. | Use when analysing interdependence, global governance and international organisations. |
Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡
Examiner hint: Compare perspectives directly. In 2020, candidates needed explicit contrasts between hyperglobalisers and sceptics to access the highest level. Do not simply describe one perspective and then the other.
Examiner hint: Stronger candidates did more than state that sovereignty was declining. They explained how economic, cultural and political globalisation affected the traditional model of sovereignty and supported their analysis with examples.
Examiner hint: Make accurate theoretical links. The 2020 examiner report found that candidates successfully connected hyperglobalism with liberalism and globalisation scepticism with realism, particularly when those connections were explained rather than simply labelled.
Examiner hint: In extended essays, keep evaluating throughout. The 2022 examiner report highlighted that AO3 remained a major differentiator. Strong responses contained sustained, substantiated judgements rather than leaving all evaluation until the final paragraph.
Examiner hint: Stay focused on the exact debate. Examiner feedback warns against explaining everything you know rather than selecting material relevant to the question. Refer regularly to terms such as sovereignty, nation-state, significance and extent when they appear in the question.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Saying hyperglobalisers simply believe that "globalisation exists"
Why this is incorrect: Their argument is much stronger. The Edexcel mark scheme identifies globalisation as new, real and extensive, producing an integrated global economy and reducing the significance of sovereignty.
How to improve: Explain the consequences for the nation-state and sovereignty.
Mistake: Saying sceptics believe globalisation does not exist at all
Why this is incorrect: The Edexcel material instead emphasises their challenge to the extent and consequences claimed by hyperglobalisers, including the importance of regionalism, borders and continuing state sovereignty.
How to improve: Write that sceptics question claims that globalisation is producing a borderless, post-sovereign global system.
Mistake: Confusing regionalism with proof of hyperglobalisation
Why this is incorrect: The 2020 mark scheme identifies regionalism as part of the sceptical argument. Regional blocs may benefit their own members rather than demonstrating one integrated global system.
How to improve: Ask whether regional co-operation weakens states or is being used by states to protect their interests.
Mistake: Treating realism and scepticism as completely separate from the debate
Why this is incorrect: Edexcel examiner feedback explicitly identified links between scepticism and realism, and between hyperglobalism and liberalism.
How to improve: Integrate theory directly into your globalisation analysis.
Mistake: Saying liberalism believes states no longer matter at all
Why this is incorrect: The provided material emphasises the growing importance of international organisations, non-state actors and complex interdependence. That does not require claiming that states have completely disappeared.
How to improve: Discuss the relative decline or constraint of state power rather than its automatic elimination.
Mistake: Treating global governance as world government
Why this is incorrect: Global governance involves decision making at global level. World government would require a common authority possessing legislative and executive power over states.
How to improve: Use this distinction as a counterargument to the claim that sovereignty has already disappeared.
Mistake: Assuming any restriction automatically ends sovereignty
Why this is incorrect: A state may face external constraints while retaining substantial independent political authority.
How to improve: Evaluate both how much control has been lost and what authority the state still retains.
Mistake: Inventing a detailed transformationalist definition
Why this is incorrect: Although transformationalists are explicitly required by the specification, the supplied Edexcel specification, mark schemes and examiner material retrieved for this lesson do not define the position in sufficient detail.
How to improve: Use only supported material unless an additional authorised source is provided.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Define sovereignty. (1 mark)
Question 2
State two claims associated with the hyperglobalist interpretation of globalisation. (2 marks)
Question 3
Explain one reason why globalisation sceptics argue that sovereign states remain significant. (4 marks)
Question 4
Consider the following hypothetical situation:
A group of states creates a regional trade organisation. Member governments co-operate economically, but each government decides whether to participate in wider international institutions and continues to control important areas of national policy.
Analyse how a hyperglobaliser and a globalisation sceptic might interpret this development differently. (6 marks)
Question 5
Explain two differences between realist and liberal interpretations of globalisation. (6 marks)
Question 6
Examine how hyperglobalisers and globalisation sceptics differ over the implications of globalisation for national sovereignty. (12 marks)
Question 7
Analyse the differences between realist and liberal interpretations of the changing significance of the nation-state under globalisation. (12 marks)
Question 8
Evaluate the view that globalisation has made national sovereignty substantially less important.
You must consider this view and the alternative to this view in a balanced way. (30 marks)
Answers and indicative mark scheme
Question 1
1 mark for:
Sovereignty is absolute and unlimited power and authority.
Question 2
Award 1 mark each for any two supported claims:
globalisation is new, real and extensive
globalisation produces an integrated global economy
global economic integration offers the prospect of prosperity
sovereignty is becoming less relevant
the nation-state is declining in significance
a global society is developing
Maximum 2 marks.
Question 3
A strong response could explain that sceptics believe national borders remain significant and states retain internal and external sovereignty. States can still decide which international institutions to join and how far they will accept their decisions, suggesting that globalisation has not replaced sovereign political authority.
Credit any accurate developed explanation.
Question 4
A strong answer should establish a direct contrast.
Hyperglobalist interpretation:
the growth of cross-border economic co-operation could be evidence of increasing interconnectedness
regional arrangements may demonstrate political and economic activity moving beyond individual nation-states
this could indicate declining independent national control
Sceptical interpretation:
the organisation is regional rather than evidence of a genuinely integrated global system
sovereign states themselves created and participate in the organisation
governments continue to control important national policy
their ability to choose participation in other institutions demonstrates continuing sovereignty
Higher marks require direct comparison rather than two isolated descriptions.
Question 5
Possible contrasts include:
States
Realism sees sovereign states as the predominant actors.
Liberalism sees growing importance for international organisations and other actors.
International system
Realism emphasises international anarchy.
Liberalism emphasises complex interdependence and the possibility of global governance.
International organisations
Realists are sceptical about their ability to override national interests.
Liberals see them as mechanisms encouraging co-operation.
Credit developed differences rather than simple labels.
Question 6
Indicative content may include:
Hyperglobalisers
globalisation is new, real and extensive
growing integration of the global economy
economic, cultural and political globalisation affect traditional sovereignty
international organisations become increasingly important
sovereignty becomes less relevant
the nation-state declines in significance
Globalisation sceptics
country borders remain important
regionalism may be more significant than globalisation
there is no clear movement towards global capitalism benefiting everyone
post-sovereign governance has not emerged
states retain internal and external sovereignty
states choose which institutions they join and when to follow them
For higher marks, contrasts should be made throughout, with coherent chains explaining why the disagreement matters for sovereignty.
Question 7
Indicative content may include:
Realism
states are key actors
state sovereignty remains central
the international system remains anarchical
international organisations depend upon states
globalisation does not remove national interests or competition
Liberalism
complex interdependence increasingly ties state fortunes together
international organisations have growing influence
global governance becomes more likely
non-state actors and globalisation can reduce relative state power
co-operation and mutual benefits become increasingly significant
Strong answers should analyse the implications of each difference for the changing significance of the nation-state, rather than simply describing the two theories.
Question 8
A balanced response could develop the following arguments.
Arguments that sovereignty has become substantially less important:
Hyperglobalisers argue that sovereignty is becoming less relevant.
Economic integration reduces the possibility of completely independent economic action.
Political globalisation increases the importance of international organisations.
International law constrains areas previously treated as purely domestic.
Humanitarian intervention challenges exclusive authority within state borders.
Complex interdependence means state fortunes are increasingly tied together.
Liberals argue that international organisations, non-state actors and globalisation erode state influence.
Arguments that sovereignty remains important:
Globalisation sceptics argue that national borders remain significant.
Regionalism may be more important than genuine global integration.
States choose which organisations to join.
States may decide how far they accept international decisions.
The international system remains anarchical, without a world government.
Realism continues to treat sovereign states as the key actors.
International organisations frequently depend upon state participation and power.
Global governance does not amount to a universal political authority above sovereign states.
Judgement: The strongest conclusion should distinguish between globalisation constraining sovereignty and eliminating it. Hyperglobalist and liberal interpretations provide significant evidence that interconnectedness, international institutions and global governance have reduced the ability of states to act in complete isolation. However, sceptical and realist perspectives demonstrate that the sovereign state remains a central political actor and that no universal authority has replaced it. The debate therefore centres on the extent of change, rather than a simple choice between states possessing complete independence and states having no sovereignty at all. The consequences of these developments for poverty, conflict, human rights and the environment are examined next in globalisation and contemporary global issues [Globalisation and contemporary global issues].
Comments