Is the centrality of the state in global politics declining?
The direction in which the international relation is taking today is either in the opposite direction to the state, or away from the state. An agenda that is beyond the state is the dominator that underrates the sudden rise of postmodernism of critical theory. In particular, it is that of constructivism along with realism and liberalism, one that focuses mostly on how to displace the state-centrism. It is argued that neorealist state-centrism does not permit the necessity of the state in global politics, while the various methods like liberalism take the state very seriously. It should be noted a new angle is attained when these theories are applied to the state.
This debate was a means through which non-realist and realist had a fight over supremacy. Through this first debate, great concern is about the significant question as to whether the state takes over the social processes and non-state actors. On the other hand, the neorealist illustrates that the state inspired with great autonomy is the central actor in global politics.
The liberals and the radicals pluralists insist that the state autonomy is declining as states are highly being overpowered by economic processes. In addition, their argument is against the neorealist assumption that, “the state is a rational, coherent and autonomous actor that is primarily interested in the high politics of security” (Kegley, 2009). The liberals in contrast claim that global interdependence is causing the breakdown of states into incoherent entities, and that states are proceeding in prioritizing the low politics of economics, distribution and welfare and ecological issues over military security. All the theories in international relations illustrated that there is interstate competition and the international political structure of anarchy is available.
According to the liberalism theory, the centrality of the state in global politics is not declining because the state has enough power to restore the international program and solve the collective action problem (Magstadt, 2008). This is achieved through the establishment of international anarchy through promoting the density of information, hence developing a peaceful and cooperative world. Each theory argues that it is necessary for the state to conform to the international political structure. Therefore, for the neorealist’s, state conflicts are unpreventable product of global political structure. According to Magstadt (2008), “The neutralism’s world is being changed to make a global cobweb of transactions that occurs across the rising porous boundaries of nation states causing the sovereign state obsolete”. Hence, this results into the neorealist counterattack which theorists illustrated that the continuity of primacy and centrality of autonomous sovereign states.
International politics is the study of political and economic worldwide. The centrality of the state in global politics is to some extent not declining. This is because the state has enough resources to change the international system and solve the various action problems. The liberals claim that global interdependence results into dissolving of states into incoherent entities, and that states are proceeding in prioritizing the low politics of economics, distribution and welfare and ecological issues over military security. Therefore, the centrality of the state in global politics is not declining just as demonstrated by the two theories, that is, the liberalism and the realism theory. The state has enough resources and this makes one believe that it has enough power to maintain its place in global politics.
Kegley, C. (2009). World Politics: Trend and transformation. New York, NY: Cengage Learning
Magstadt, T. (2008).Understanding Politics: Ideas, Institutions, and Issues. New York, NY: Cengage Learning.