images

The impact of shared-sovereignty upon nationalism is contested within academia, wondering if it undermines, increases or transforms nation states within a globalized world. It is my contention that non-state actors have ultimately undermined national sovereignty itself.

The Historical Narrative

In order to comprehend the concept, it is best to briefly understand its foundations and its connection to neoliberalism.

During and post-WWII the economic theory of Keynesianism was championed by many Western countries. However by the 1980’s, disillusionment with interventionism arose and was replaced by the creed of neoliberalism. The Reagan-Thatcher Administrations spearheaded it: this saw privatization, deregulating industries and international free trade.[1] This saw the redefinition of public-private spheres; with ‘public’ being considered to be government and ‘private’ are corporations.[2]

By 2000, the global market was skewed towards the interests of multinational corporations with its oligopolistic completion is often constrained and aimed at controlling national governments.[3] I would suggest that this established universal corporatism.

The Corporate World

The traditional role of the state has always been a source of governance, however this has seen its power slowly usurped by non-state actors.[4]

With no alterative available, it appears that the bi-polar world was replaced by a new post-liberal order.[5] This order originates in the West, it incorporates neoliberal principals. This implies this newfound ‘Corporate State’ has taken neoliberalism to the extreme, thus transforming it into authoritarian corporatism, working through multinationals such as the IMF and transnational entities like the European Union. This means that the neoliberal concepts became imposed from an international level.[6]

The implication of the Corporate State is that authority resides in offshore institutions. This private authority usurps national legitimacy and creates rules, principals, norms and regulations that must be adopted by governments.[7] It defines and prioritizes issues and present solutions to problems along with designed, adopted and implement their own rules and regulations.[8] Furthermore, they are motivated by the avoidance of activist and NGO scrutiny, appease investors and to create a standardized operating system.[9] The concern of lack of accountability is pacified by the promise of self-regulation that even extends between firms, governments and civil society via public-private partnerships.[10]

However, I would argue that the West is unfairly demonized as transgressions also fell upon Western countries. The abovementioned entities may be superficially thought of Western, but in reality they are no longer dependent upon their home counties. They are now manifesting within a transnational networks and sharing regulation and governance.[11]

The European Example

The Eurozone is facing a breakup due to the backlash by rediscovered nationalism by various countries due to rebelling against the sovereignty-killing aspect of liberal-corporatism. The bailouts of Greece, Ireland and Spain, accompanied interest rates paid by nations on their actions, cut in spending and increase in taxation.[12] These polices were applied by the transnational institution of the IMF which saw Euro institutions collapsed by 2011 which saw the Euro-commission appoint technocratic governments such as Italy and Greece.[13]

In conclusion, by non-state actors via neoliberalism appears to have transcend nationalism itself. Furthermore, it adopted authoritarian characteristics that created a hubris that made it believe that it could regulate and police itself. As seen in the European example, by having such freedom and power the nation state has become eroded by transnational entities.

Bibliography

Elbra, A.D. (2014), “Interests Need Not be Pursued if they can be Created: Private Governance in African Gold Mining”, Business and Politics, Vol.16, No.2, pp.247-266.

Haufler, V. (2006), “Global Governance and the Private Sector,” in May, C. ed., Global Corporate Power, Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Wilks, S. (2013), The Political Power of the Business Corporation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, ch.7.

[1] Virginia Haufler, (2006), Global Governance and the Private Sector, Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 90.

[2] Virginia Haufler, (2006), Global Governance and the Private Sector, Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 92.

[3] Stephen Wilks, (2013), The Political Power of the Business Corporation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, ch.7. p. 150.

[4] Ainsley D. Elbra, (2014), Interests Need Not be Pursued if they can be Created: Private Governance in African Gold Mining, Business and Politics, Vol.16, No.2, pp.247-266. p.249.

[5] Stephen Wilks, (2013), The Political Power of the Business Corporation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, ch.7. p.148.

[6] Stephen Wilks, (2013), The Political Power of the Business Corporation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, ch.7. p.149.

[7] Ainsley D. Elbra, (2014), Interests Need Not be Pursued if they can be Created: Private Governance in African Gold Mining, Business and Politics, Vol.16, No.2, pp.247-266. p.250.

[8] Ainsley D. Elbra, (2014), Interests Need Not be Pursued if they can be Created: Private Governance in African Gold Mining, Business and Politics, Vol.16, No.2, pp.247-266. p.255.

[9] Ainsley D. Elbra, (2014), Interests Need Not be Pursued if they can be Created: Private Governance in African Gold Mining, Business and Politics, Vol.16, No.2, pp.247-266. p.259.

[10] Ainsley D. Elbra, (2014), Interests Need Not be Pursued if they can be Created: Private Governance in African Gold Mining, Business and Politics, Vol.16, No.2, pp.247-266. p.255.

[11] Stephen Wilks, (2013), The Political Power of the Business Corporation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, ch.7. p.166.

[12] Stephen Wilks, (2013), The Political Power of the Business Corporation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, ch.7. p.160.

[13] Stephen Wilks, (2013), The Political Power of the Business Corporation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, ch.7. p.160.

Advertisements