0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
14 tayangan6 halaman
We live in an ever-globalising world, whereby advancements in technology and communication have fostered in an era where the rapid transnational movement of people, capital and goods has become commonplace (Held et al. 1999). This apparent process of globalisation has, in part, brought about with it important changes with regards to capitalism, through its respatialisation, which has occurred in the second half of the 20th century (Scholte 2005). This, in part, has led to the change in governance from ‘statism’ to ‘polycentrism’, resulting in a movement of governance from simply by the nation state, to governance being rescaled and occurring increasingly at the substate and suprastate levels (Scholte 2005). The substate level involves power being devolved to local authorities, whereas the suprastate level involves, power and regulation being undertaken by large-scale authorities such as regional blocs or transplanetary groups. Furthermore, there has also been a growth in the number of private institutional forms that complement the state in the governance of society (Taylor 1999). Subsequently, rather than saying there has been a loss of sovereignty for the state, one can say, the power of the state has undergone a degree of transformation. This rescaling of governance has extensive impacts on the state as a whole, by influencing aspects of it, such as power structures, peoples’ livelihoods and the physical landscape (Batterbury 2006).
Judul Asli
What is rescaling of governance & what implications does it have for the state?
We live in an ever-globalising world, whereby advancements in technology and communication have fostered in an era where the rapid transnational movement of people, capital and goods has become commonplace (Held et al. 1999). This apparent process of globalisation has, in part, brought about with it important changes with regards to capitalism, through its respatialisation, which has occurred in the second half of the 20th century (Scholte 2005). This, in part, has led to the change in governance from ‘statism’ to ‘polycentrism’, resulting in a movement of governance from simply by the nation state, to governance being rescaled and occurring increasingly at the substate and suprastate levels (Scholte 2005). The substate level involves power being devolved to local authorities, whereas the suprastate level involves, power and regulation being undertaken by large-scale authorities such as regional blocs or transplanetary groups. Furthermore, there has also been a growth in the number of private institutional forms that complement the state in the governance of society (Taylor 1999). Subsequently, rather than saying there has been a loss of sovereignty for the state, one can say, the power of the state has undergone a degree of transformation. This rescaling of governance has extensive impacts on the state as a whole, by influencing aspects of it, such as power structures, peoples’ livelihoods and the physical landscape (Batterbury 2006).
We live in an ever-globalising world, whereby advancements in technology and communication have fostered in an era where the rapid transnational movement of people, capital and goods has become commonplace (Held et al. 1999). This apparent process of globalisation has, in part, brought about with it important changes with regards to capitalism, through its respatialisation, which has occurred in the second half of the 20th century (Scholte 2005). This, in part, has led to the change in governance from ‘statism’ to ‘polycentrism’, resulting in a movement of governance from simply by the nation state, to governance being rescaled and occurring increasingly at the substate and suprastate levels (Scholte 2005). The substate level involves power being devolved to local authorities, whereas the suprastate level involves, power and regulation being undertaken by large-scale authorities such as regional blocs or transplanetary groups. Furthermore, there has also been a growth in the number of private institutional forms that complement the state in the governance of society (Taylor 1999). Subsequently, rather than saying there has been a loss of sovereignty for the state, one can say, the power of the state has undergone a degree of transformation. This rescaling of governance has extensive impacts on the state as a whole, by influencing aspects of it, such as power structures, peoples’ livelihoods and the physical landscape (Batterbury 2006).
What is rescaling of governance & what implications does
it have for the state? We live in an ever-globalising world, whereby advancements in technology and communication have fostered in an era where the rapid transnational movement of people, capital and goods has become commonplace (Held et al. 1999). This apparent process of globalisation has, in part, brought about with it important changes with regards to capitalism, through its respatialisation, which has occurred in the second half of the 20 th century (Scholte 2005). This, in part, has led to the change in governance from statism to polycentrism, resulting in a movement of governance from simply by the nation state, to governance being rescaled and occurring increasingly at the substate and suprastate levels (Scholte 2005). The substate level involves power being devolved to local authorities, whereas the suprastate level involves, power and regulation being undertaken by large-scale authorities such as regional blocs or transplanetary groups. Furthermore, there has also been a growth in the number of private institutional forms that complement the state in the governance of society (Taylor 1999). Subsequently, rather than saying there has been a loss of sovereignty for the state, one can say, the power of the state has undergone a degree of transformation. This rescaling of governance has extensive impacts on the state as a whole, by influencing aspects of it, such as power structures, peoples livelihoods and the physical landscape (Batterbury 2006). According to Scholte, prior to the dominance of globalisation, the worlds governance was dominated predominantly by the nation state, with micro and macro regional regulation occurring on only a very small level. This factor can be attributed to the Treaty of Westphalia, which was signed in 1648, that deemed each state full sovereignty over its own territory and thus foreign states with no say in its dealings. However, due to the process of globalisation, the ability of the state to remain the sole form of governance and exercise complete control over its territory became increasingly difficult. This was due to the associated aspects of globalisation, such as improved communications, emergence of global currencies and electronic commerce along with many more, which subverted the statist mode of governance (Scholte 2005). As a result, this eventually led to the Westphalian notion of sovereignty becoming obsolescent (Rosenau 1992). This has subsequently led to a postWestphalian statehood, whereby the government in the more global world has become multi-layered and trans-scalar (Scholte 2005). This change in the dominant discourse of governance can be understood by regarding the new incumbent conditions of being that of polycentrism. Therefore, despite the statist mode of governance coming to an end, states have not met the same fate but have merely undergone a transformation, whereby the growth of transplanetary connectivity has led to the diffusion of power to other
Kumayl Karimjee 05.11.10
The State
actors, both private and public, at a variety of spatial scales, and
these new forms of sovereignty filling the gaps (Harris et al. 2004). It thus incorporates suprastate regimes, which have some autonomy from the nation state, but also in substate regimes, where the local authority or private enterprise also have a certain degree of sovereignty and engage with spheres outside their own country (Scholte 2005). The rise of substate authorities came about due to the impracticality and the subsequent demise of the statist mode of governance, which was fostered by the presence of globalisation. This was the case as the growing transplanetary relations associated with globalisation, helped loosen the exclusive control that a state had over its territory. Therefore, regulation diffused to other sites below the government, resulting institutions and authorities at local levels filled gaps in governance brought about by the end of static governance. These new forms of governance were provided with both decision-making and revenue-raising capabilities and thus were no longer wholly subordinated to state. Despite local authorities having a certain degree of authority prior to globalisation, they were never able to extend their sphere of influence to foreign states. This process of the devolution of power brought about by decentralisation occurred in many countries due to the need for them to increase the efficiency and extensiveness of public services, whilst also making the government in power increasingly accountable to the public (Larson & Ribot 2004). The development of substate institutions was also financially backed in certain cases by suprastate institutions such as the EU. A prime example of this was in Belgium, whereby in the 1980s, the Belgium centralised government, devolved from a national to subnational spheres, resulting in the formation of two separate substate authorities, namely the Flemish and the Walloon government. The rise of these substate authorities has a number of consequences upon the state itself. Firstly, the devolution of power and the consequent gain of sovereignty by local authorities allow them to follow an economic path that is tailored more specifically to their needs. It allows these local authorities to breed what are known as supralocal connections, which involve global links being intensified between municipalities. This initially started at an early stage as town twinning in the 1950s but has now moved onto some substate authorities developing more sustaining links, such as with regards to Quebec, which has foreign affairs departments in 17 countries worldwide. This allows for the region to improve its own specific economic performance rather than benefiting from the trickle-down effect of benefits from other parts of Canada. Also, in the UK, the rescaling of governance has directly affected both the government and the people through the devolution of collective bargaining, from a national level to a much more localised process.
Kumayl Karimjee 05.11.10
The State
This has been to allow for different wages to be set in different
areas, which can be set to take into account specific factors, such as high living costs in one region. Furthermore, by reducing the strength of the collective bargaining, it weakens the position of the trade unions and adds added pressure to workers to accept the local pay deals (Swyngedouw 2004). Fergusons concept of capital and resources hopping into specific areas can be applied to a specific consequence of the rescaling of governance (Sidaway 2007). This is the case in Dubai, whereby the state has formed a variety of different zones, which each have varying characteristics that are tailored to attract specific types of foreign investment. For example, the Media City has, in contrast to the rest of the state, near complete freedom of press, and Internet City has no restrictions on its internet (Sidaway 2007). This can also occur with regards to TNCs, who are very fickle about their location and thus, states provide whatever benefits they can to attract these firms. This would be very difficult to do on a national scale under static governance, however, under polycentrism; local authorities can do this with greater specific knowledge on a smaller scale. From a political viewpoint, this decentralisation can improve the extent to which the feelings of the local people are heard and taken into account (Batterbury 2006). This was clear in Indonesia in the late 1990s, where political reforms provided those residing in rural areas with a greater sense of power and an ability to be heard by those in charge, as decision making has been devolved to local authorities, who can thus impact on their lives rather than all power effectively being held by a centralised government (McCarthy 2004). However as Batterbury (2006) noted, the rescaling of governance can also impinge upon the level of good governance, by placing local authorities in excess power and providing them with too great a degree of sovereignty. As a result, it can often proliferate the instances of corruption, whereby local government officials are prone to receiving bribes. Furthermore, devolution of power with regards to specific commodities can also impinge upon good governance. In the case of Senegal and Nepal, control of the forests were decentralised too rapidly, and can place elites in charge of all the resources removing the apparent democracy which should otherwise be present (Batterbury 2006). Globalisation has not only affected the way in which states act internally, but also the way in which they act collectively. Whilst devolution of power can occur downwards on a spatial scale, it can also happen upwards. This is fostered by transplanetary connections that bring countries together to collaborate on specific issues. This can happen over a variety of spatial scales above the state, such as on an interstate, macro-regional or near global scale. Transstate connections occur where governments from different states collaborate and share information. Although these
Kumayl Karimjee 05.11.10
The State
collaborations are not written down as treaties, they are based on a
memorandum of understanding among the officials involved. Primary examples of such collaborations are through the police, where police work together to solve cross-border crimes, and environmental regulation, where regulators can cooperate on problems that transgress the borders (Scholte 2005). These connections can be extremely beneficial for the state as it can allow it to solve problems such as crime more efficiently and this cooperation with other states can reduce costs for the state itself. However, these transgovernmental networks can also be seen as being separating up states and can even lead to the fragmentation of them. This is explained through the change in the nature of governance from a Westphalian model of the nation state, in which foreign affairs would have been handled through one department. But in the more global world, foreign affairs would be handled through a plethora of ministries and departments that are all generally autonomous from each other. This can lead to transministerial cooperation being greater than cooperation in the state. However, whilst relationships may be weak within a country, they may also be frayed. This is especially the case within different ministerial departments of a government, such as between an environment and economic minister who each have conflicting goals and are likely to clash with their views. As a result, the cohesiveness of the state can be seen as being weakened by the global nature of relationships between states (Scholte 2005). The rescaling of governance and more specifically the formation of suprastate governance, has led to the development of regionalisation of countries, whereby these states form alliances based on trade as exemplified by 109 regional trade agreements signed from 1948-94 (The Economist 1995). The EU is the most prominent example of macro-regionalism, with it composing 25 countries. As a result of this, states have had to fulfil certain criteria to join the bloc and from then on their continued membership is dependent on whether they continue to fulfil these. As a result, being part of a regional bloc can be seen as leading to a loss in autonomy for some countries. The development of suprastate governance has also lead to the formation of transregional initiatives such as the OSCE, which spans central Asia, Europe and North America and includes 55 states. Suprastate governance can exist on an even bigger scale with regards to transworld governance, whereby issues require a global dimension to be tended to properly, with the battle against AIDS and the development of air travel are prime examples of this. Another key example of this is development, which is handled predominantly by the IMF, which since its inception has amassed 184 members. The aim of this institution has been to intervene in the performance of its member economies, and thus can impinge upon a states own sovereignty by locking states into SAPs which alter their economic
Kumayl Karimjee 05.11.10
The State
strategy to whatever the IMF proposes in exchange for a loan from
the IMF (Scholte 2005). Globalisation has led to the blurring of the boundaries between the state, civil society and the market (Grit 2004). Thus, despite governance normally being associated entirely with the public sector, there has been a rise in prominence of privatisation. Firstly, this has occurred with regards to the regulation of firms, which has increasingly taken place by private firms or even by the firms themselves. Secondly, there has been a significant movement away from state-funded welfare to it being provided by the private sector. With regards to the regulation of firms, there have been regulatory gaps in suprastate governance, with suprastate measures designed to regulate TNCs often being regarded as weak, such as the UN Global Compact. As a result there has been a movement towards the self-regulation of firms, due to a growth in the presence of corporate social responsibility (Zadek 2001). Nike is again a key example with regards to this, with it trying to re-establish its reputation capital that was heavily diminished through claims it utilised child labour. In the late 1990s, it made reforms such as nearly eliminating petrochemicals form its footwear and attempting to quash instances of labour exploitation and child labour by the suppliers, which it subcontracts in its supply chain. However, despite the formation of codes of conduct, the framework that is imposed still remains voluntaristic and firms which have not been exposed to in the public arena can choose which codes they follow and which ones they ignore (Thompson 2005). Therefore, the implications for the state of this rescaling of governance are that consumers and the environment may be more susceptible to being exploited due to the lack of institutionalised regulation. In the early 20th century, most of the social welfare was provided by the state in the UK. But by the end of the century, there was a significant loss in social welfare guarantees, resulting in the opening up of economies to private market activity to fill all the welfare gaps. This was most notable in the UK in the 1980s during the premiership of Margaret Thatcher who effectively exacted a reversal on state guarantees. This was common throughout Europe, occurring in Scandinavia in the 90s after significant pressure to retrench, so much so that no government in the 21 st century was following a progressive wealth system (Scholte 2005). This movement of welfare from the public to the private sphere occurred due to governments attempting to cut costs and improve efficiency in these sectors. This rescaling of governance has led to the hollowing out of the welfare state and placed a greater degree of responsibility on citizens to purchase their own welfare. Although this can benefit the state on fiscal grounds by heavily cutting expenditure, it is highly regressive and creates a vicious cycle of poverty, continuously increasing inequality (Batterbury 2006). The
Kumayl Karimjee 05.11.10
The State
provision of water in Mexico exemplifies this point. In this scenario, a
private firm has commoditised water and costs have in fact risen placing increased pressures on lower-wage workers, especially in rural areas such as Sonora (Batterbury 2006). One can see that increased transplanetary relations and greater global connectivity have resulted in static governance being unviable in the more global world that we now live in. therefore, polycentrism has clearly resulted in the rescaling of governance with a greater degree of regulation occurring at both a substate and suprastate level. Therefore, local authorities have obtained a greater degree of importance in the global economy, whilst suprastate institutions also remain pivotal. Along with these, private institutions have also flourished in the place of the less efficient and costlier public alternatives. This change in governance has had extensive implications, not only for the economies of states, but also for their people and the environment. However, despite the end of the static state and the diffusion of power away from the nation state, it still remains of the utmost importance and the major locus of regulation (Batterbury 2006). Bibliography
Held, D. et al. (1999) Global Transformations
J. A. Scholte (2005) Globalization E. Swyngedouw (2004) Globalisation or Glocalisation? Networks, territories and rescaling S. P. Batterbury (2006) Rescaling Governance and Impacts of Political and Environmental Decentralisation Ong (2006) Neoliberalism as exception: mutations in citizenship and sovereignty James Sidaway (2007) Enclave space: a new metageography of development? M. Huxley (2008) Space and government: governmentality and geography