WILL GLOBALIZATION CHANGE EVERYTHING? Four big questions for social scientists: Will global politics in the 21th c. follow the rules of a new system? Do the standard theories of IR—especially realism--still predict state behavior? Are states still going to be the primary actors in IR? Is globalization an extension of one of our existing theories to explain state behavior? Both liberalism and conflict theory (aka Marxism or “conflict theory”) see contemporary politics as having evolved around Hobbesian anarchy Is globalization a phase linked to a certain balance in the intl. system or is it a completely new system? Realists argue that the “liberal international order” is simply US hegemony and that it will fall apart in the absence of a dominant power

THE MARXIST.CONFLICT VIEW What is the basic Marxist argument? All political history is class struggle for economic ends. Capitalism is a necessary step, and one that is an improvement on feudalism Capitalism’s contradictions (efficiency = exploitation, alienation, automation, & concentration Capitalist governments—and the state structure—serve only “bourgeoisie” interests Old Marxism: That leads to external wars, internal revolutions, state collapse  brief dictatorship of the proletariat  End of history (communism)

Conflict-Radical theory today What did Vladimir Lenin have to say about imperialism as a response to the failure of Marx to predict revolution? Dependency/world systems theory: Is the entire world one economic system with a core and a periphery? With the institutional of the global system: International organizations and the current intl. system represents capitalist interests first. Antonio Gramsci’s hegemony and the emergence of intl. institutions and norms—Notice who is in control? Is “globalization” the final stage of capitalism? Interconnectedness & interdependence & uniformity of Markets, capitalist norms and : The world is small, the world is flat, and it increasingly looks and acts the same everywhere.

THOMAS FRIEDMAN’S VIEW OF GLOBALIZATION: IT IS A NEW INTL SYSTEM AS MUCH AS WHAT WE SAW WITH THE ADVENT OF THE MODERN STATE SYSTEM Defining technologies: Miniaturization, info. technology, the internet, & intl shipping (Setzler: AI & nuclear weapons): Globalization = exponential change in the goods, services, and know how that drive state and commercial power The fundamental intl. rules: The “Washington Consensus”; The “Golden Straightjacket” Defining structure of power: Used to be states vs. states. Now it’s the interaction of states, markets, individuals & intl. institutions spread all over. But the firm is now the dominant institution. Dominant ideas: Free market capitalism (Setzler: or state capitalism); Maybe democracy will have a central role… but maybe it will not Dominant culture: Americanization? Westernization? Demographic trends: Unprecedented movement, declining birth rates The measurement of power: How you are connected to everyone else The defining fear: Falling behind What does all of this mean for America? Maybe it’s good!

BUT IS THE WORLD REALLY FLAT? Globalization is a choice? A little history and the current crisis What is Ferguson’s point in Sinking Globalization? Globalization is a political choice rather than inevitable, and it can shrink very rapidly John Mearsheimer’s “rule of water still applies, and around 90% of world trade is carried by the international shipping industry; Satellites carry less than 1% of human communications. Submarine cables carry the rest A US financial collapse (20 trillion deficit, and look at what we’re up to now) Evidence that the world isn’t flat: Gehemawat (data next page) How do we operationalize the concept of globalization Domestic foreign invest vs. Foreign dir. investment Portfolio investment, trade, patenting People and phone call revenue Even the internet is primarily domestic

2016 – Globaloney Measures

2016 – Global submarine internet system

BUT IS THE WORLD REALLY FLAT? Why is globalization slowing down? Most states and most markets are domestic, and they have rooted interests in keeping it that way (even the EU is an example ways to protect states) Are intl. orgs a challenge to state power or an expression of it? I0s—save the WTO—have pretty limited activity that is separate of what powerful states want them to do. The stakes of globalization will affect global power, so states will fight it just like they always have threats to their interest Domestic politics leads to fights against globalization; state capitalism and state responses to terrorism and intl. crime show that states can adapt to remain more relevant than ever before. The big fights ahead: The limits of energy & water, climate warming, how much human rights should trump sovereignty, & globalizing the entire economy rather than just what the powerful countries want globalized.