You are here

Home » Content

Ekonomik Küreselleşme ve Ulus-Devlet: Kuramsal Yaklaşımlar

Economic Globalization and The Nation-State: Theoretical Perspectives

Journal Name:

  • Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2011

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
The main purpose of this article is to analyze the theoretical approaches that examine the relationship between economic globalization and the nation-state. It covers the strong liberal globalization, skeptic globalization, Marxist global capitalism and Marxist new imperialist perspectives. While the strong liberal globalization approach argues that with the economic globalization, the nation-state has become smaller, weaker, lost its power and sovereignty, and even its existence is under threat, other three perspectives share similar argument in that nation-state has not become smaller, weaker, lost its sovereignty, but it has only faced with the restructuring of its directions and functions. The strong liberalization globalization approach argues that currently invisible global market forces have become more powerful than the nation-states that are assumed to have the strongest political authority over society and economy. The skeptic globalization perspective claims that nations-states have a big flexibility and incredible abilities in terms of reproducing themselves and adapting themselves to new conditions. It argues that contemporary globalization has been written by nation-states and globalization is about the restructuring of the nation-states. According to this approach, nation-states have been internationalized and denationalized. The Marxist global capitalism perspective analyzes economic globalization with reference to the idea of the emergence of transnational capitalist class, internationalization of the nation-state, the hegemony of the transnational capitalist class and the emergence of the transnational state. Nation-states are becoming a transmitting belt that carries out policies generated by transnational institutions. A transnational state consists of institutions and applications that protect, defend and advance the hegemony of the global bourgeoisie. The new historical unity is the unity of the transnational capitalist class that has devoted itself to spread neo-liberal policies all over the world. This development cannot be explained by the U.S. imperialism or a competition among new imperialists; instead, it can only be explained by taking into account the intertwined conditions of the nation-states. According to the new imperialist perspective, globalization in its current form, in reality, is a new form of American imperialism. This new imperialism is viewed as a direct penetration of the U.S. capital into foreign social formations. This forces nation-states to restructure themselves economically, politically and ideologically, and to articulate themselves with the new US super state. The latest international contracts bind nation-states to the American empire by creating intense financial, economic, military and cultural institutional ties. Except the global capitalism approach, the other three perspectives do not share the view that the transnational capitalist class and transnational state have emerged in economic globalization period.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu makalenin temel amacı, ekonomik küreselleşme ve ulus-devlet arasındaki ilişkileri analiz eden kuramsal yaklaşımları incelemektir. Bu yaklaşımlar, güçlü liberal küreselleşme, sorgulayıcı küreselleşme, Marksist küresel kapitalizm ve Marksist yeni emperyalist küreselleşme yaklaşımlarından oluşmaktadır. Güçlü liberal küreselleşme yaklaşımı, ekonomik küreselleşme ile birlikte devletin küçüldüğü, zayıfladığı, otorite ve egemenliğini kaybettiği ve hatta ulus-devletin sona erme ile karşı karşıya kaldığını savunurken diğer üç yaklaşım ulus-devletin küçülmediğini, zayıflamadığını, egemenliğini kaybetmediğini, sadece hedef ve fonksiyonlarında bir değişiklik meydana geldiğini iddia etmektedir. Güçlü liberal küreselleşme yaklaşımı günümüzde dünya piyasasının kişisel olmayan güçlerinin, toplum ve ekonomi üzerinde politik otoritesinin en fazla olduğu farz edilen devletten daha güçlü hale geldiğini iddia etmektedir. Sorgulayıcı küreselleşme kuramcılarına göre ulus-devletler kendi varlıklarını sürdürme ve adapte olmaya yönelik inanılmaz yeteneklere sahiptirler. Bu perspektif günümüz küreselleşmesinin devletler tarafından yazıldığını ve küreselleşmenin devletlerin yeniden örgütlenmesi ile ilgili olduğunu savunur. Bu yaklaşıma göre ulus-devletler uluslararası hale gelmiş ve milliyetçilik anlayışı erozyona uğramıştır. Mark¬sist küresel kapitalizm yaklaşımı ekonomik küreselleşmeyi, ulus-ötesi kapitalist sınıf ve devle¬tin uluslararasılaşması, ulus-ötesi kapitalist sınıf hegemonyası ve ulus-ötesi devletin oluştuğu görüşleri etrafında analiz etmiştir. Bu yaklaşıma göre ulus-devletler, ulus-ötesi kurumlar tarafından oluşturulan politikaları uygulayan bir iletici kayış haline gelmektedir. Ulus-ötesi devlet, küresel toplumda ortaya çıkmış küresel burjuvazinin hegemonyasını koruyan, savunan ve ilerleten kurumlar ve uygulamalardan oluşur. Yeni tarihi birlik ulus-ötesi kapitalist sınıf birliğidir ve bu sınıf kendini bütün dünyada neo-liberal politikaların yayılmasını sağlamaya adamıştır. Bu gelişme Amerika Birleşik Devletleri'nin emperyalizmi veya yeni emperyalistler arasındaki çekişmeyle açıklanamaz, ancak bütün ulus devletlerin ulus-ötesi iç içe geçmelerini göz önüne alarak açıklanabilir. Yeni em¬peryalizm yaklaşımına göre günümüz formunda küreselleşme, gerçekte Amerikan Emperyalizmi¬nin yeni bir biçimidir. Bu yeni emperyalizm, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri sermayesinin yabancı soysal oluşumların direkt olarak içine nüfuz etmesi şeklinde betimlenmektedir. Bu, ulus-devletlerin kendi içinde ekonomik, politik ve ideolojik yeniden yapılanmalarını ve yeni bir Amerikan süper devlet ile tabi eklemlenmesini zorunlu kılmaktadır. Son yıllardaki uluslararası antlaşmalar, yoğun finansal, ekonomik, askeri ve kültürel bağlar yaratarak ulus-devletleri Amerikan imparatorluğuna bağlar. Küresel kapitalizm yaklaşımı küreselleşme döneminde ulus-ötesi kapitalist sınıf ve ulus-ötesi devlet aygıtının oluştuğu görüşünü paylaşırken ele alınan diğer üç kuramsal perspektif bu görüşte değildir.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-ekonomik-kuresellesme-ulus-devlet-kuramsal-yaklasimlar.pdf
  • 1
149-164
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

Albo, G.
(2003)
. The old and new economics of imperialism. L. Panitch ve C. Leys (Eds.), The
socialist register içinde (ss. 88-113). London: Merlin. Arrighi, G. (2005a). Hegemony unraveling I. New Left Review, II (32/33), 23-80. Arrighi, G. (2005b). Hegemony unraveling II. New Left Review, II (32/33), 83-116. Barrow, C.W. (2005). The return of the state: Globalization, state theory, and the new
imperialism. New Political Science, 27, 123-145. Bello, W. (2005). Dilemmas of domination: The unmaking of the American Empire. New York:
Henry Holt.
Cox, R.W. (1987). Production, power, and world order. New York: Columbia University Press. Cox, R.W. (1981). Social forces, states and world orders: Beyond international relations theory.
Millennium, 10, 126-155. Doyle, M. (1983). Kant, liberal legacies and foreign affairs: Part One. Philosophy and Public
Affairs, 12, 205-235. Evans P. (1997). The eclipse of the state? World Polity, 50, 62-87.
Foster, J.B. (2003). The new age of imperialism. Monthly Review, 55, 1-14. Giddens A. (2000). Runaway world: How globalization is reshaping our lives. New York: Routledge.
Gill, S. (2003). Power and resistance in the new world order. Palgrave: Macmillan.
Gill, S. ve Law, D. (1988). The global political economy: Perspectives, problems, and policies.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Gilpin, R. (2000). The challenge of global capitalism: The world economy and its discontents.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Glassman, J. (1999). State power beyond the 'Territorial Trap': The internationalization of the
state. Political Geography, 18, 669-696. Green, P. (2002). The passage from imperialism to empire: A commentary on empire by Michael
Hardt and Antonio Negri. Historical Materialism, 10, 29-77. Hardt, M. ve Negri, A. (2004). Multitude. New York: Penguin.
Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of Neoliberalism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Harvey, D. (2003). The new imperialism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Held, D. ve McGrew, A. (Eds.). (2000). The global transformations reader. Oxford: Polity Press. Hirst, P. ve Thompson, G. (1996). Globalization in question. London: Polity. Jessop, B. (1994). Post-Fordism and the state. A. Amin (Ed.), Post-Fordism: A reader içinde (ss.251-280). Oxford: Blackwell.
Kautsky, K. (2002). Ultra-imperialism. Workers Liberty, 2, 73-79.
Keily, R. (2006). United States hegemony and globalization: What role for theories of
imperialism? Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 19, 206-221. Kennedy, P. (1993). Preparing for the twenty- first century. New York: Random House. Kobrin, S.J. (1997). The architecture of globalization: State sovereignty in a networked global
economy. J. H. Dunning, (Ed.), Governments, globalization, and international business
içinde
(ss
. 146-171). New York: Oxford University Press. McMichael, P. (1996). Development and social change: A global perspective. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Pine Forge.
O'Connor, J. (2002). Introduction to the transaction edition. J. O'Connor (Ed.), Fiscal crisis of the state transaction içinde (ss. xiii-xxviii). New Brunswick: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Ohmea, K. (1995). The end of the nation state: the rise of regional economies. London: Harper Collins.
Panitch, L. (2000). The new imperial state, New Left Review, II, 5-20.
Panitch, L. (1994). Globalization and the state. R. Miliband ve L. Panitch, (Eds.), The socialist
register içinde (ss. 60-93). London: Merlin. Panitch, L. ve Gindin, S. (2006). Imperialism and global political economy—A reply to Alex
Callinicos. International Socialism, 109, 194-199. Panitch, L. ve Gindin, S. (2005). Finance and American empire. L. Panitch, ve C. Leys (Eds.),
The socialist register içinde (ss. 46- 81). London: Merlin. Panitch, L. ve Gindin, S. (2004). Global capitalism and American empire. L. Panitch ve C. Leys
(Eds.), The socialist register içinde (ss. 1-42). London: Merlin.
163
Ekonomik Küreselleşme ve Ulus-Devlet: Kuramsal Yaklaşımlar
Picciotto, S.
(1997)
. The internationalisation of the state. Capital and Class, 43, 43-63. Pijl, V. D, K. (1998). Transnational classes and international relations. London: Routledge. Robinson, W.I. (2007). Beyond the theory of imperialism: Global capitalism and the
transnational state. Societies Without Borders, 2, 5-26. Robinson, W.I. (2004). A theory of global capitalism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Robinson, W.I. (2002). Capitalist globalization and the transnationalization of the state.
M. Rupert ve H. Smith (Eds.), Historical Materialism and Globalization içinde (ss.
210-229). London: Routledge.
Robinson, W.I. (2001). Social theory and globalization: The rise of a transnational state.
Theory and Society, 30, 157-200. Rodrik, D. (1997). Has globalization gone too far? Washington, DC.: Inst. Int. Econ. Sakamoto, Y. (1994). Global transformation. New York: UN University Press. Sassen S. (1996). Losing control? Sovereignty in an age of globalization. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Scott, J. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have
failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Shue, V. (1998). The reach of the state: Sketches of the Chinese body politics. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press. Sklair, L. (2001). The transnational capitalist class. Oxford: Blackwell.
Skocpol, T. (1995). Social policy in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Skocpol, T. (1979). States and social revolutions: A comparative analysis of France, Russia and
China. New York: Cambridge University Press. Starr, H. (1997). Democracy and integration: Why democracies don't fight each other. Journal of
Peace Research, 32, 153-162. Strange S. (1996). The retreat of the state: The diffusion of power in the world economy. New
York: Cambridge University Press. Tilly C. (1992). Coercion, capital, and European states, A.D. 990-1992. Cambridge: Basil
Blackwell.
Wade, R. (1996). Globalization and its limits: Reports of the death of the national economy are greatly exaggerated. S. Berger ve R. Dore (Eds.), National Diversity and Global Capitalism içinde (ss. 60-88). Itheca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Wallerstein I. (1974). The modern world-system. New York: Academic Press.
Weiss, L. (Ed.). (2003). States in the global economy: Bringing democratic institutions back in. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Weiss, L. (1998). The myth of the powerless state. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Went, R. (2002). Globalization in the perspective of imperialism. Science and Society, 66, 473¬497.
Wood, E. (2003). Empire of capital. London: Verso.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com