GLOBALIZATION AND AUTHORITY

Globalization and Authority

Globalization and Authority

Q: What increase of authority, if any, has globalization delivered to the state?

Ans: The social construction of the relationship between the legislature and the economy is also critical, especially in the context of economic globalization. In some states, the legislature is specifically charged with shaping the economy, and the state buffers individuals from economic instability. Other countries exalt the free market and are loath to place controls on economic enterprises (Ruggie, 2008). Still other countries are under great pressure to adopt policies that are most consistent with a free-market ideology whether they prefer those policies or not. The interrelationship between the legislative sphere and other social spheres has a profound impact on how, when, and why legislation is created and the meaning and power of any legislation that is adopted (Scholte, 2007).

Regulation theorists ascribe the end of Fordism to various causes. Productivity gains decreased because of the social and technical limits to Fordism (Tomlinson, 2006). Globalization made the management of national economies increasingly difficult. Increased state expenditure produced inflation and state overload. Competition among capitalists shifted the norms of consumption away from the standardized commodities associated with mass production. All of these causes contributed to the end not only of Fordism but also the bureaucratic, Keynesian, welfare state associated with it (Eriksen, 2008). Although regulation theorists can be reluctant to engage in speculations about the future, they generally associate the new post-Fordist era with the globalization of capital, neoliberal politics, contracting-out, public-private partnerships, and the regulatory state (Bhagwati, 2006).

The advisers to neoliberals often drew on rational choice theory. Rational choice theory extends a type of social explanation found in microeconomics. Typically, rational choice theorists attempt to explain social outcomes by reference to micro level analyses of individual behavior; and they model individual behavior on the assumption that people choose the course of action that is most in accord with their preferences (Anghie, 2007). Rational choice theorists influence neoliberal attitudes to governance in large part by way of a critique of the concept of public interest (Barkey, 2006). Their insistence that individuals, including politicians and civil servants, act in their own interest undermines the idea that policymakers act benevolently to promote a public interest (Finnemore, 2006). Indeed, their reduction of social facts to the actions of individuals casts doubt on the idea of a public interest beyond the aggregate interests of individuals. More specifically, rational choice theorists provide neoliberals with a critique of bureaucratic government (Franck, 2008). Often they combine the claim that individuals act according to their preferences with an assumption that these preferences are typically to maximize one's wealth or power (Frank, 2007). Hence, they argue that bureaucrats act to optimize their power and career prospects by increasing the size of their fiefdoms even when doing so is unnecessary. This argument implies that bureaucracies have an inbuilt tendency to grow even when there is no good reason for them so to do.

Because rational choice theory privileges micro level analyses, it might appear to have ...