Department of Education
Region VI– Western Visayas
Schools Division of Iloilo
BUGA NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
Buga, Leon, Iloilo
SUBJECT: PHILIPPINE POLITICS AND
GOVERNANCE
TOPIC: STATES, NATIONS AND
GLOBAL IZATION
The Role of the State
A state is a community of persons more or less
numerous, occupying a definite portion of territory,
free from external control and having a government
to which the inhabitants render habitual obedience
(De Leon, 2009). The four elements of the state are
people, territory, government, and sovereignty.
People refers to the inhabitants living within the
state. There is no specific number of persons to be
considered a state but they must be numerous
enough for self-defense and must consist of male
and female. The biggest state in terms of people is
the People’s Republic of China while the smallest is
the Vatican, considered as a state within a state.
Territory refers to the physical attributes of the
state in terms of boundaries and size of land. The
land must be big enough to support the needs of the
people e.g can be planted with crops and other
edible plants. The biggest state in terms of territory
is Russia while the smallest is again in Vatican.
Government refers to the aggregate of authority
which governs society. It comes from the Latin
word gubernaculum which literally means “rudder”,
the steering wheel of a ship. Thus, the function of
the government is to guide the state towards its
political and economic destination in the same way
that the rudder guides the ship towards its course.
Sovereignty refers to the power of the state to chart
its own destiny without the interference of other
states. There are two kinds of sovereignty: external
and internal. External sovereignty means the state
cannot be dictated by other states as regards its
internal affairs while internal sovereignty is the
coercive power of the state to be obeyed by its
citizens.
Theories on the Origin of the State:
1. Divine Right Theory- it posits the view that the
state is a creation of God.
2. Patriarchal Theory- it posits the view that the
state originates from the family to a tribe, a clan and
later on, transforming into a state.
3. Force Theory- it posits the view that a group of
warriors imposed their will and formed a state.
4. Social Contract Theory- it posits the view that
the state was formed due to agreements or contracts
between the government and the governed.
5. Economic Theory- it posits the view that the
state arose out of the needs of the people which
bounded them together to form a state.
The Basis of a Nation
The term “nation” (Cruz, 1999), strictly
speaking as formed from its etymology “nasci” which
means to be born. It implies a relation of birth or origin
and indicates a common race, commonly characterized
by a community of language and customs. The nation is
a racial or ethnic concept while the state is a legal
concept.
The Difference between State and Nation
1. Difference in the elements:
The state has essentially four elements –population,
territory, government, and sovereignty. In the absence
of even one element, a state cannot really be considered
a State on the other hand, a nation is a group of people
who have a strong sense of unity and common
consciousness.
The elements of common territory, common race,
common religion, common language, common
history, common culture and common political
aspirations help the formation of a nation, and yet none
of these is an absolutely essential element. The elements
which characterize a nation keep on evolving as time
goes by.
2. State is a Political Organization while Nation is a
social, cultural, psychological, emotional and political
unity:
The state is a political organization which satisfies the
security and welfare needs of its people. It is concerned
with external human actions. It is a legal entity. On the
other hand, a nation is a united unit of population which
is full of emotional, spiritual, and psychological bonds.
A nation has business with the physical needs of the
people.
3. Territory is essential for the State but not for a
Nation:
It is essential for each State to possess a fixed territory.
It is the physical element of the State. State is a territorial
entity. But for a Nation territory is not an essential
requirement, a nation can exist even without a fixed
territory. For example, the Palestinians were a nation
even though they had no fixed territory of their own.
4. Sovereignty is essential for State but not for Nation:
Sovereignty is an essential element of the State. In the
absence of sovereignty, the State loses its existence. It is
the element of sovereignty which makes the state
different from all other associations of the people. It is
not essential for a nation to possess sovereignty.
However, each nation always aspires to be sovereign and
independent of the control of every other nation.
5. Nation can be bigger in Scope than the State:
The State is limited to a fixed territory. Its boundaries can
increase or decrease but the process of change is always
very complex. However a nation may or may not remain
within the bounds of a fixed territory. Nation is a
community based on common ethnicity, history and
traditions and aspirations. Obviously its boundaries can
easily extend beyond the boundaries of the State.
6. There can be two or more Nationalities living in one
State:
They can be two or more than two nations with a single
State. The United States of America for example is an
amalgamation of nations. Most of the modern states are
multinational states.
7. Nation is more stable than State:
A nation is more stable than the state. When sovereignty
ends, the State dies, but not the nation. A nation can
survive even without sovereignty. For example, after
their defeat in the World War II, both Germany and
Japan lost their sovereign statuses and outside powers
began to control them. They ceased to exist as States but
they continued to live as nations.
8. A state can be created while a Nation is always the
result of evolution:
A State can be created with the conscious endeavors of
the people. Physical elements play an important role in
the birth of State. A nation on the other hand, is a unity
of the people which emerges slowly and steadily. No
special efforts go into the making of a nation.
9. The State uses police power (force) for preserving
its unity and integrity, the Nation is bound by strong
cultural and historical links:
The state exercises police power. Those who dare to
disobey it are punished. A nation does not have police
power or force or coercive power rather, it is backed by
moral and traditional power. A nation survives on the
power of sense of unity of the people. A nation appeals,
the State orders; a nation persuades, a state coerces; and
a nation boycotts, the state punishes.
State and nation do not have the same boundaries, and
yet there is a tendency for a nation and state to be a one
entity. Most of the nation’s today stand organized into
different states and are multinational states. The modern
state is called a nation-state because all the (nationalities)
living in one state area integrated into one nation.
10. A single nation can consist of many states:
There can be one nation comprising of many states. A
single nation may cut among many states specially if
such nation merely migrated to their neighboring states
and became the dominant population. An example of this
is the Arab nation which consists of many Middle East
states like Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya and Yemen
to name a few.
The State and Globalization
The term globalization involves three different aspects in
the world economy. And none are more of profound
relevance than that of Ngaire Woods (2001) who
categorized them into:
1. Internationalization which is the increase in
economic transactions across borders.
2. Technological Revolution- the effect of new
electronic gadgets that allow global operation
without regard for location, distance and borders.
3. Liberalization which refers to the politics
undertaken by states which makes globalization
possible.
Some scholars would focus on technology while others
like Martin Wolf (2001) consider policy as the
determining factor on the extent and pace of international
economic integration.
This was brought about when large parts of the
globe decided to abandon economic policies of self-
imposed isolation from international commerce (Brink
Lindsey, 2000). This may have been due to the failure of
other economic movements like the Fordist mass modes
of production and the Keynesian principle of government
intervention in trade and commerce in the 1970s.
Accordingly,” unhindered movement of capital,
goods and services across national frontiers leads to an
optimal and efficient allocation of scarce resources
(Robert Went, 2000). Thus, without governments
imposing limitations and strict rules and regulations,
resources are produced more efficiently, traded with
greater efficacy and consumed by more people in the
world.
The economic and political balance is no longer focus on
the state but on international agencies and entitles such
as multinational corporations and credit institutions.
Mark Berger (2001) further emphasizes that there is
a shift in power from nation-states to increasingly
mobile types of capital and international financial
institutions and organizations. For him, this
technological changes have “dramatically altered
production processes and increased the speed and
scope with which information and ideas, as well as
capital, move around the globe”.
Indeed, it seems that states no longer enjoy the status and
stature that they once enjoyed centuries ago; they seem
to have vanished on the foreground, allowing other
entities to take their place and take center stage.
As Ngaire Woods (2001) reiterates, globalization is
“increasing interdependence among states,
increasing global interconnectedness and the capacity
of states to influence others” which greatly needs
some consideration because it would further enhance
the strengths of stronger states while further
diminishing the clout of weaker ones. As a result, the
economic gap between states could further expand
and tilt the balance of power which had already been
eroded by the end of the Cold War.
Nevertheless, globalization is not the result of gradual
and spontaneous emancipation of the economic
sphere from government control. On the contrary, it is
the result of conscious and sometimes violent state
intervention by advanced capitalist states (Burchill,
2001). By imposing their will on states in the periphery,
to open up their markets and adopt liberal policies or face
sanctions and financial assistance disapproval, the global
financial setting became liberalized
A globalized economy is one in which neither distance
nor national borders impede economic transactions.
This would be a world where the costs of transport
and communications were zero and the barriers
created by differing national jurisdiction had
vanished. These distinctions include more rapid
communications, market liberalization, and global
integration of the production of goods and services
(Martin Wolf, 2001). Indeed, it is a world where state
borders no longer matter, state identities are no
longer significant and global differences had
disappeared.
The Positive View
While some experts contend that globalization had
eroded the international role of states, others point out
“the role of powerful states in setting the rules of the new
international order and their influence over less powerful
states” (Woods, 2001). Thus, such contention may have
only some application on states of lesser significance but
cannot be given weight with regard to dominant states.
It is on issues of economic policy, where wealthier and
more powerful countries are less constrained by
globalization (2001). They can afford not to go with the
general trend as they can withstand economic instability
and have the ability to absorb disturbances that go with
the volatile markets.
On the other hand, some critics of globalization blame
the distortion and vitality of markets and social
development on free markets gone haywire; when in fact,
however, these problems are due to the formidable
presence of anti-market policies and institutions
(Lindsey, 2000).
And indeed, the role of states is not eroding, states and
governments still have a very important and substantial
role to play in a successful economy (Woods, 2001).
States provide a conductive atmosphere for business by
eradicating security concerns and offering incentives e.g.
tax holidays and exemptions. They implement economic
policies and provide facilities such as infrastructure,
transportation and communication capabilities.
This perspective is contrary to the view of the Liberals
who point to the increasing irrelevance of national
borders in the conduct and organization of economic
activity. Such Liberals focus on the growth of free trade,
the capacity of transnational corporations to escape
political regulation and national legal jurisdictions and
the liberation of capital from national and territorial
constraints”. (Scott Burchill, 2001)
Thus, while for them globalization had liberated the
power of financial markets from the authority of the
over-arching state (2001) and concludes that the state is
in decline; democracy is spreading and international
commerce is almost unfettered, Realists cite a number of
important powers retained by the state despite
globalization including monopoly control of weapons of
war and their legitimate use; and the sole right to tax its
citizens
Only the nation-states can still command the political
allegiances of its citizens or adjudicate in disputes
between them. And it is only the nation-state which has
the exclusive authority to bind the whole community to
international law.
For while technology is supposed to make globalization
inevitable it also makes increased surveillance by the
state, particularly over people, easier than it would have
been a century ago (Wolf, 2001). Thus it expands the
power of states to counter the flow of information on
people and gives them a better control on the activities
of individuals thereby enhancing their power and
relevance.
Martin Wolf further explains that globalization
makes states necessary by contending that:
First, the ability of a society to take advantage
of the opportunities offered by international
economic integration depends on the quality of public
good such as property rights, an honest civil service,
personal security and basic education which are
offered by states.
Second, it is the state which normally defines
identity and people would naturally want to retain
their unique individual traits and culture rather than
be absorb in the overflowing trend of global effects.
And Finally, International governance rests
on the ability of individual states to provide and
guarantee stability. The bedrock of international
order is the territorial state with its monopoly on
coercive power within its jurisdiction
The Negative View
While some scholars believe that globalization is nothing
new and that it has not affected the authority of states,
“other IPE critics posit the view that globalization is
dramatically diminishing the role of states” (Woods,
2001). They contended that states have become obsolete
in the face of the growing tendencies of states to adopt
policies that liberalize their economies.
These dramatic changes that have swept the communist
world and the Third World countries have been driven
primarily by the recognition on the part of national
leaders that their state-dominated systems had failed
(Lindsey, 2000). This failure resulted in a wave of
economic reforms e.g. tax cuts and privatizations not
only in these countries but also in industrialized
democracies. However, much of these changes become
possibly only after the stagflation of the 1970’s
discredited the “mixed economy” and the
macroeconomic policies (2000).
According to Mark Berger (2001), the nation-states
always had serious limitations as an instrument of
liberation and progress. Its monolithic character has
made it incapable of adapting to the current needs of the
times. It is no longer able to respond to the onset of
globalization that threatens to undermine even its very
own existence. Its failures maybe traced to its rigid
structure, limited views and bias undertakings.
The negative effects of globalization according to Went
(2000) are dominant dictatorship of the markets, greater
social inequality; deterioration of wages, working
conditions and social security, ecological destruction and
deterioration and undermining of democracy. These are
the effects of the bargaining table in global negotiations.
This was aptly illustrated in the globalization of the
Southeast Asian crisis which shock protagonists of free
trade and financial liberalization who had presented the
development of these Asian economies as the ultimate
proof that such policies work (Went, 2000).
While opponents of globalization blame the recent
financial crises in Asia and Latin America on
unregulated capital movements which is partly true, the
real cause is when governments abuse their access to
international capital markets by adhering to
unsustainable monetary policies (Lindsey, 2000). States
must therefore learn to go with the tide so to speak and
attune their policies to the needs of the globalized world.
In the final analysis, nation-states could lose direct
control over the value of their currencies and the
movements of capital around the world (Burchill, 2011)
if they fail to adapt to the challenges brought about by
globalization.
For Woods (2001), governments and states are losing
their capacity to control economic interactions because
the quantity and rapidity of flows make it more difficult
for governments to regulate trade, investments or capital.
With the liberation of the unregulated capital liberated by
the collapse of the Bretton Woods System in early
1970’s, this resulted in the increase in the power of
transnational capital and the diminution of national
economic sovereignty (Burchill, 2001). And indeed,
globalization has certainly weakened the authority of
nation-states.
Prepared by: GROUP 3
Marlie Camano
Jesebelle Cajulao
Jodelyn Mae S. Cangrejo
Kyle Camarino
Ace Gezer Capilarta