Search results

Despite the apparent development and spread of liberal democratic state forms in the 1980s and 1990s, possibilities for genuine democratic governance overall are declining. Firstly, the emergence and consolidation of modern liberal democracy was inextricably intertwined with the development of the nation-state and is profoundly socially embedded in that structural context. Secondly, in today's globalizing world, cross-cutting and overlapping governance structures and processes increasingly take private, oligarchic (and mixed public/private) forms; hegemonic neoliberal norms are delegitimizing state-based governance in general; and democratic states are losing the policy capacity necessary for transforming democratically generated inputs into authoritative outputs. Consequently, robust constraints limit the potential for (a) reinstitutionalizing the 'democratic chain' between accountability and effectiveness, (b) rearticulating the multitasking character of authoritative institutions and (c) renewing the capacity of authoritative agents to make the side-payments and to undertake the monitoring necessary to control free-riding and assimilate alienated groups. Rather than a new pluralistic global civil society, globalization is more likely to lead to a growth in inequalities, a fragmentation of effective governance structures and the multiplication of quasi-fiefdoms reminiscent of the Middle Ages. (European Journal of Political Research / FUB)

THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE NATION-STATE INTO A 'COMPETITION state' lies at the heart of political globalization. In seeking to adapt to a range of complex changes in cultural, institutional and market structures, both state and market actors are attempting to reinvent the state as a quasi-'enterprise association' in a wider world context, a process which involves three central paradoxes. The first paradox is that this process does not lead to a simple decline of the state but may be seen to necessitate the actual expansion ofde factostate intervention and regulation in the name of competitiveness and marketization.

Considers the impact of 1980s-1990s transformations in global financial markets on capitalist diversity. Financial markets are described as a central mechanism through which diverse market processes are brought together in a single web. Currently, financial markets are undergoing a transformation in which they are being integrated at a global level. This process has reduced the ability of national political structures to regulate & stabilize their markets. It has also seriously eroded capitalist diversity. While the proper solution to this situation may be the development of international-level regulatory solutions, these have not been developed because of political difficulties. Better forms of regulation will require a strong international coalition, considerable political & legal autonomy on the part of the negotiators, a narrow technical focus, & that it be enforceable. Without the institution of transnational regulation, it is likely that the transnational financial structure will be run by a private regime located in the financial markets themselves. D. Ryfe

Sjolander, C. T.: The rhetoric of globalization: what's in a wor(l)d? - S.603-616. Cerny, P. G.: Globalization and other stories: the search for a new paradigm for international relations. - S.617-637. Winham, G. R.: International trade policy in a globalizing economy. - S.638-650. Broadhead, L.- A.: Commissioning consent: globalization and global governance. - S.651-668. Porter, T.: Capital mobility and currency markets: can they be tamed? - S.669-689. Wolfe, R.: Global trade as a Single Undertaking: the role of ministers in the WTO. - S.690-709. Doran, C. F.: Trade dispute resolution 'on trial': softwood lumber. - S.710-733