UNIT 2

2.1 STATE AND DIFFUSION OF AUTHORITY /POWER

SUSAN STRANGE ,THE STATE AND THE STATE

Exam Answer: The Changing Role and Authority of the State in International Relations

Scholars of international relations have long debated the role of the state in a world that has
seen profound changes, especially since the end of the Cold War. One of the central arguments
is whether the state remains the dominant actor in the international system or if its power has
diminished due to globalization, economic interdependence, and the rise of non-state actors.
Traditionally, states were seen as the primary actors in international relations, with their
sovereignty and authority at the center of global politics. However, contemporary perspectives
challenge this view, suggesting that the state's dominance has been undermined, and its
responsibilities are now shared with other entities.

One of the primary responsibilities of the state has been defending national territory, often
requiring sacrifices from its citizens. Historically, this was tied to the protection of sovereignty,
with territory being a key factor in national prosperity. However, in modern times, the risk of
foreign invasion has diminished in most developed countries. Defense has become more about
maintaining professional armies for targeted interventions rather than mass mobilizations for
territorial protection. Economic competition, rather than territorial control, now defines inter-state
rivalries, reducing the centrality of this responsibility.

Another significant role of the state is maintaining currency stability, a critical component of a
functioning market economy. While this responsibility formally remains with states, globalization
has made currency management a collective endeavor. Inflation or economic instability in one
major economy can quickly spread to others, as seen in the United States in the 1970s. This
has led to international mechanisms like currency pegs and collective financial strategies,
limiting individual states' autonomy in monetary policy.

The state's ability to shape its development strategy has also been constrained. Historically,
states could choose between models of capitalism—such as the interventionist "Rhenish" model
or the laissez-faire "Anglo-Saxon" approach—but globalization has driven convergence. Trade
liberalization, privatization, and strategic alliances between multinational corporations have
reduced the freedom of states to pursue distinct economic paths. While some variation remains,
the pressures of global markets have forced most states toward similar policies.

Managing economic cycles, once a hallmark of Keynesian economic policies, has also become
challenging. States previously used fiscal and monetary policies to counteract booms and
slumps, but global factors now often override national efforts. For example, the oil crisis of 1973
and subsequent stagflation highlighted the limits of state-led interventions. Coordinated global
action is increasingly necessary, further reducing state autonomy.
Welfare provision, a key function of the modern state, has expanded significantly over the 20th
century, with states acting as safety nets for vulnerable populations. However, fiscal constraints
now challenge the expansion of welfare programs. While states still play a crucial role in
providing economic security, their ability to introduce new welfare measures is limited by
budgetary pressures.

Taxation, traditionally a cornerstone of state authority, has also been weakened by globalization.
Corporations often exploit tax havens and negotiate terms with multiple jurisdictions, reducing
the state's ability to collect revenue. Additionally, public resistance to increased taxes limits the
state's capacity to expand its tax base. The result is a shared authority over taxation between
states, private actors, and international organizations.

Control over trade, another traditional state responsibility, has diminished as well. The direction,
volume, and content of trade are now largely driven by corporate decisions and global market
demands rather than state interventions like tariffs or quotas. While states can influence trade to
some extent, their impact is marginal compared to the forces of supply, demand, and
multinational corporate strategies.

States have historically played a central role in building infrastructure, such as railways and
communication networks, to enhance national competitiveness. While this remains an important
function, the involvement of private firms, often foreign, in modern infrastructure projects has
reduced state control. Governments now face challenges in balancing private interests with
public needs.

The promotion of market competitiveness has similarly shifted away from the state. Monopolies,
once supported by governments, are now discouraged due to global competition. Structural
changes in the global economy have forced states to prioritize economic openness and
adaptability over protectionism.

Finally, the state’s monopoly on violence—a defining characteristic according to Marxist

thought—faces challenges from organized crime, terrorism, and transnational security threats.
Global markets for weapons and the rise of non-state violent actors undermine state control.
While states remain critical in maintaining security, their authority in this domain is no longer
absolute.

In conclusion, the role and authority of the state are undergoing significant transformation. While
the state remains a key actor in international relations, its responsibilities are increasingly
shared with non-state actors, international organizations, and global markets. Structural
changes in the global economy and society have reduced the state's autonomy, making it one
source of authority among many in a complex and interconnected world. This evolution reflects
the metamorphosis of the state from a dominant institution to one of many influential players in
global governance.
Let us consider in more detail the ten more important powers or responsibilities attributed to the
state, and still claimed for it by many political leaders.

1. Defense and Sacrifice of Lives

Historically, states held the right to sacrifice citizens’ lives for national defense. However, the
decline in the perceived threat of foreign invasions, especially in developed nations, has
reduced this responsibility. Today, states rely on professional armies for specific interventions,
often overseas. Territorial competition has been replaced by economic competition in global
markets, making the state's role in defense less central.

2. Maintaining Currency Stability

Ensuring stable currency is critical for economic stability, a role traditionally assigned to states.
However, globalization has made this a collective responsibility, with inflation and economic
instability in one state easily spreading to others. International linkages, like currency pegging
(e.g., France and Belgium aligning with the Deutsche Mark), illustrate the diminished autonomy
of states in controlling monetary policy.

3. Choosing Capitalist Development Models

States historically chose their development strategies, balancing market intervention and social
welfare responsibilities. While debates over import substitution and export orientation have
shaped policy, global trends, including liberalized trade and privatization, indicate a convergence
of capitalist models. Strategic alliances and globalized markets have further eroded state
autonomy in choosing distinct economic paths.

**4. Managing Economic Cycles**

Keynesian policies once empowered states to address economic booms and slumps. However,
events like the 1973 oil crisis and global stagflation revealed the limitations of national-level
interventions. The interconnected global economy now requires coordinated efforts to manage
economic cycles, reducing individual states’ capacity to act independently.

**5. Providing Welfare and Economic Security**

States expanded their roles in providing welfare to protect vulnerable populations, leading to
larger bureaucracies and higher government spending. However, fiscal constraints now limit
further expansion of welfare systems. With reduced focus on military security and capped
welfare budgets, the state's overall value to society may be declining.

**6. Taxation Authority**

While states retain the primary role in taxation, globalization and corporate strategies, such as
incorporating in tax havens, have weakened this power. Competition for private investment
further restricts states' ability to increase taxes. Taxation authority is increasingly shared with
private actors and influenced by international economic dynamics.

7. Controlling Foreign Trade

States traditionally managed trade through tariffs and quotas, but global markets now dominate
trade flows. Corporate decisions and market demands largely dictate trade volumes and
directions, limiting the effectiveness of state interventions. Protectionist policies, once
significant, have minimal impact on trade in modern globalized markets.

8. Building Infrastructure
States have historically played a key role in infrastructure development, from railways to
communication systems, which boosted national competitiveness. In the modern era, the focus
has shifted to communication technologies, where private firms often lead. Governments now
face weaker bargaining positions with private enterprises, reducing their influence on
infrastructure development.

9. Ensuring Market Competitiveness

Global competition has forced states to reduce monopolies and increase market
competitiveness. Protectionist policies for national champions are becoming costly and
unsustainable. Structural changes in the global economy have compelled governments to
prioritize economic openness and competition over monopoly protection.

10. Monopoly on Violence

The state’s legitimate use of violence remains a defining attribute. However, organized crime,
terrorism, and the global arms trade have challenged this monopoly. Groups like mafias and
terrorist organizations operate across borders, exploiting global market structures to acquire
weapons and resources, undermining state control over violence.

Conclusion
The state's traditional responsibilities are being reshaped by globalization and structural
changes in the global economy. While states remain significant, their autonomy and
effectiveness in areas such as defense, trade, economic policy, and welfare are increasingly
constrained by interconnected markets, private actors, and global trends. This evolution reflects
the state's transition from a dominant authority to one of many influential players in the
international system.

Introduction to the State in International Relations (IR)

The academic discipline of International Relations (IR) has historically centered on the state as
the primary unit of analysis, with the narrative of IR largely unfolding through relations among
states. Since the late 18th century, states have dominated institutional innovation in international
politics, often seen as central realities or myths depending on perspective. While realists defend
the state as the cornerstone of international relations, critics argue it is an outdated concept
unable to explain the complexities of global interdependence. Despite evolving theories and
challenges, the state remains a key focus due to its multidimensional nature, encompassing
spatial, cultural, and technological dimensions.

Challenges to the Primacy of the State

From the end of World War I, scholars began questioning the state’s capacity to function as a
coherent unit in the international system. Functionalists, like Mitrany and Haas, argued that
increasing international cooperation, especially in Europe, would reduce the centrality of
nation-states by fostering spatial integration. However, the resurgence of nationalism,
exemplified by leaders like Charles de Gaulle, limited the functionalist approach, reinforcing the
state’s role as the primary actor in national security.

The rise of globalization, advancements in communication, and the influence of transnational

corporations (TNCs) further challenged state authority. Raymond Vernon famously described
this shift as “sovereignty at bay,” illustrating how large TNCs operated independently of state
regulation, influencing global markets and undermining the traditional concept of territorial
sovereignty. However, even with these challenges, the state remained central, as TNCs often
relied on states for support and protection, particularly in matters of security and economic
stability.

Pluralism and the Concept of Complex Interdependence

Pluralist and interdependence scholars, such as Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, introduced
the concept of complex interdependence, which highlighted the limitations of realist theories
focused solely on state power and military security. They argued that international relations
involved multiple issues, including economics, environment, and human rights, where non-state
actors played significant roles. This framework acknowledged transnational and
transgovernmental relations, emphasizing the interconnected nature of global politics and
challenging the state’s monopoly on authority.

Neo-Realist Resurgence and State Resilience

Neo-realists like Kenneth Waltz responded to these critiques by reasserting the importance of
the state. Waltz argued that TNCs and other non-state actors could not function without the
support of their parent states, which provided critical resources and security guarantees. He
emphasized the structural role of the international system, where states remained the primary
actors despite interdependence. However, neo-realists faced criticism for accommodating too
many variables into their theories, diluting their coherence and failing to address the
agent-structure dilemma fully.

Robert Gilpin further defended the state’s relevance, asserting that it was premature to declare
the decline of the nation-state. According to Gilpin, states remained essential in managing
power dynamics, even as globalization reshaped traditional practices.

Challenges from Globalization and Subnationalism

The late 20th century witnessed an unprecedented surge in globalization, technological

advancements, and the rise of subnational and ethnic identities, which further eroded the state’s
authority. Scholars like Kenichi Ohmae argued that nation-states had become obsolete, likening
them to relics in a “Jurassic Park.” Ohmae highlighted how global economic forces, driven by
corporate interests, harmonized cross-border activities and reduced the state’s control over
exchange rates, capital flows, and technology.

Similarly, post-modernist scholars, such as Richard Ashley and James Der Derian, critiqued the
state’s centrality, linking its authority to Western modernity’s pursuit of control and closure. They
argued that the state was losing relevance in a world where temporality and technology
overshadowed traditional territorial boundaries.

Liberal Institutionalism: A Middle Ground

Liberal institutionalism emerged as a synthesis of neo-realist and interdependence theories,

focusing on the role of international institutions in fostering cooperation among states. Scholars
like Robert Keohane and Arthur Stein emphasized that while states remained important, their
behavior was increasingly constrained by international institutions and systemic forces. This
approach sought to explain cooperation in an anarchic international system without negating the
state’s significance.

Internal Challenges to the State

James Rosenau provided a comprehensive analysis of internal factors threatening the state’s
stability. He argued that states were becoming vulnerable due to population growth,
technological innovation, economic globalization, and the rise of subgroup identities. States that
failed to adapt to these changes faced declining legitimacy, as new performance criteria
replaced traditional measures of authority. Rosenau predicted a gradual transition toward a
multicentric world where subnational and transnational actors would share power with states,
leading to the “splintering” of state authority from within.

Conclusion

Despite numerous challenges from globalization, technological advancements, and the

rise of non-state actors, the state remains a pivotal unit in international relations. Its role
has evolved, with states adapting to the complexities of interdependence and internal
pressures. While its authority is no longer absolute, the state continues to navigate a
world of competing forces, balancing traditional sovereignty with the demands of a
globalized and interconnected society. The resilience of the state lies in its ability to
adapt, collaborate, and redefine its functions within an ever-changing international
system.

The Legitimacy of the State in International Relations

Introduction to the Legitimacy of the State

The legitimacy of the state as the central actor in international relations has faced persistent
challenges. Critics argue that the state’s relevance is undermined by its limitations and ethical
failings, particularly its claim to sovereignty and authority. However, while the state is not without
flaws, its contributions and unique functions make it indispensable. The aim is not to grant the
state an unassailable status but to emphasize its continued relevance by delineating functions
that no other organization can perform. Ethical criticisms of the state often stem from its
monopoly on identity, political authority, and community, but this does not negate its role in
reconciling internal governance with external anarchy.

Sovereignty and the Ethical Basis of the State

The principle of sovereignty has long been tied to the state’s legitimacy. Realist theorists argue
that sovereignty transforms a Hobbesian world of mistrust into relative social cooperation.
Sovereignty also grounds the state’s authority, enabling it to define territorial boundaries and
enforce governance. Critics of sovereignty, however, contend that it fosters an egoistic view of
security and perpetuates a fixed territorial framework that limits alternative political
arrangements.

Post-Westphalian sovereignty, influenced by modernity, reflects Eurocentric ideas of

individualism and liberalism. It aligns sovereignty with the pursuit of knowledge and autonomy,
positioning the state as a custodian of individual freedoms. This relationship between the state
and sovereignty highlights the state’s role in ensuring social security, even as it is critiqued for
its exclusionary practices.

The Role of the State in National and International Contexts

The state’s connection to nationalism is crucial for understanding its legitimacy. As Eric
Hobsbawm demonstrated, nationalism and the state developed concurrently, particularly in
Europe, shaping the modern nation-state. Soviet scholars differentiated between national
sovereignty and the state, emphasizing the right of nations to self-determination even without
formal statehood. However, the unity of national will and state authority is critical; prolonged
dissonance between the two can weaken the state’s legitimacy and effectiveness.

As a politically defined space, the state claims legitimacy through its unique ability to enforce
governance, maintain order, and represent collective will. This claim is independent of
performance or governability, focusing instead on its authority to organize and regulate territorial
space. The dominance of the state persists because no alternative organization has
successfully replaced its capacity to impose a sense of international purpose, stabilize society,
and enforce rules within an anarchic global system.

Class Dynamics and State Authority

The state functions as a condensate of social classes, with dominant coalitions influencing
policy and resource allocation. These coalitions shape public policy to defend their interests,
often excluding competing groups. Shifts in class composition or coalition power can alter the
trajectory of state authority, but the fundamental principle of territorial governance remains
intact. This enduring feature of the state ensures its survival despite internal and external
challenges.
Challenges to State Legitimacy

Western democracies have faced a legitimacy crisis for decades, with growing discontent over
governance and structural inefficiencies. In the Global South, polyarchies often struggle with
corruption, inequality, and ineffective governance. Despite these challenges, the territorial logic
of the state remains deeply ingrained in human consciousness, making it resistant to
displacement by alternative forms of organization.

Realist theories, which emphasize anarchy as the starting point of international relations, fail to
adequately explain the state’s sociological and structural properties. Neo-realists also overlook
how the state’s internal dynamics influence its behavior in the international system, focusing
instead on the constraints of the global structure.

Dependency theorists, such as Immanuel Wallerstein, offer a different perspective, viewing the
state as integral to the capitalist world system. According to Wallerstein, the interstate system
legitimizes and constrains state sovereignty, with global capitalism shaping the rules and norms
that govern state behavior. Sovereignty, in this view, represents formal autonomy but operates
within significant limitations imposed by the international system and other states.

Conclusion: The Continued Relevance of the State

The state remains a vital actor in international relations, capable of imposing governance,
ensuring stability, and representing collective interests in an anarchic global system. Its
legitimacy is grounded in its unique ability to define and regulate territorial space, even as its
authority is shaped and constrained by internal dynamics and global forces. While the state
faces persistent ethical and practical challenges, no alternative form of organization has proven
capable of replacing its central role in international politics. The resilience of the state lies in its
adaptability, enduring relevance, and capacity to balance internal governance with external
pressures.

Introduction: The Dimensions of the Nation-State

Dependency and world-systems scholars have contributed significantly to the understanding of

the nation-state by moving beyond the classical Marxist notion of the state as purely
super-structural. They introduced a sociological perspective that evaluated the autonomy of
states in a polarized global economy and emphasized the limits of sovereignty without
dismissing the state’s relevance. Central to this perspective is the concept of territoriality, where
the spatial definition of the state generates meanings and emotional connections that other
organizational forms have failed to replicate. The state, through its borders, provides both
external security and a sense of national identity, using values and symbols to unify diverse
groups.
The State’s Internal and External Legitimacy

Internally, the state maintains its legitimacy by balancing political governance with depoliticized
public realms, such as welfare programs and capitalist ideologies like civic privatism. This
strategy ensures stability within advanced capitalist systems by compensating for capitalism’s
inherent inequalities. Externally, the state relies on structural power and hegemony to legitimize
its territorial authority.

Structural power, as defined by scholars like Stephen Krasner, emphasizes the state’s ability
to influence international regimes. Krasner’s analysis shows that regimes, often seen as tools
for standardizing international cooperation, are instrumental in bolstering state authority rather
than diminishing it. These regimes allow states to exert “meta-power,” or the ability to shape the
rules of the game in international relations. Similarly, Susan Strange’s analysis of structural
power highlights how states create transnational networks to deepen their control over the
global political economy, ensuring their continued dominance despite challenges from
globalization.

Hegemony, rooted in Gramscian theory, refers to the consensual domination of the state
through the manufacturing of consent. Unlike coercive control, hegemony stabilizes the state’s
authority by aligning the interests of civil society with the state’s objectives. This allows the state
to maintain legitimacy while addressing internal and external challenges.

Structural Power and the Resilience of the State

The resilience of the state lies in its capacity to define and enforce norms within the global
system. Structural power ensures the reproduction of certain behaviors and discourages
deviations from established norms. The state resists systemic transformations by holding onto
stable role identities, which reduce uncertainty and minimize the costs of domestic and
international failures. This consistency in identity formation is crucial for the state’s survival and
its ability to navigate the complexities of the global political economy.

While globalization and transnational networks have created challenges, they have also
provided opportunities for states to reinforce their roles. For example, by managing economic
interdependence and creating regimes, states have maintained control over critical issue areas
without diminishing their sovereignty. The state’s ability to adapt to these dynamics ensures its
relevance in international relations.

The State and Civil Society

The relationship between the state and civil society is a critical dimension of its legitimacy.
Antonio Gramsci identified civil society as the primary realm where interests converge, identities
are formed, and ideological debates take shape. Civil society provides a space for democratic
participation and dissent, countering the state’s homogenizing tendencies. However, the
argument for civil society is not a rejection of the state but a call for harmony and
complementarity between the two. Civil society acts as a check on the state, ensuring
accountability and preventing overreach, while the state provides the structural framework
necessary for civil society to function effectively.

Conclusion: The Enduring Relevance of the State

The state continues to play a central role in international relations due to its ability to adapt to
internal and external challenges. Dependency and world-systems theorists, along with structural
power and hegemonic frameworks, demonstrate how states maintain their authority even in the
face of globalization and transnational forces. While civil society offers an alternative space for
participation and accountability, it complements rather than replaces the state. The state’s ability
to balance territoriality, governance, and legitimacy ensures its resilience and relevance in the
modern world.

State and Political Economy: Challenges and Response

The state’s ability to effectively implement policies and achieve its objectives has been
increasingly challenged by trends in the international political economy. Two key factors have
significantly eroded the state's functional capacity. The first is the dominance of financial capital
at both national and international levels. The rise of global financial markets, particularly the
Euro-currency market, weakened political control over international finance, especially after the
post-War period. This shift, combined with the financial crises faced by developing countries and
the reassertion of power by institutions like the IMF and World Bank, has disrupted the state’s
ability to regulate its own economy. Furthermore, the role of Japan as a leading financial power
in place of the United States marked the era of the globalization of finance capital, which
increasingly undermines state sovereignty as financial markets move freely across borders. This
financial fluidity clashes with the state's need for territorial control, weakening its capacity to
manage the economy according to national interests.

The second major challenge to the state's power comes from the trend of global labor migration.
International migration, which often results from dislocated production processes in specific
regions, has strained the state's ability to manage and integrate its labor force effectively. Labor
migration, along with the shift in production models, has led to a growing divide between global
capital and labor. The shift from Fordist production methods to more flexible, decentralized
forms of economic organization, based on a core-periphery structure, has allowed transnational
corporations to bypass national regulations and reduce the bargaining power of labor. This has
particularly marginalized labor in the developing world, where industries have relocated in
search of cheaper, less regulated labor. As a result, states are increasingly unable to protect
their labor forces from the pressures of global capital.

Speculative finance, or "casino capitalism," has further eroded the state's power. The rise of
speculative capital, enabled by technological advances in communication and finance, has
created an economy in which capital flows with little regulation or oversight. This phenomenon
has destabilized national economies, contributing to high unemployment rates, economic
recessions, and a decline in industrial production. The state, particularly in developed nations,
has struggled to manage these unregulated capital flows, unable to control the direction or
volume of finance. This inability to regulate capital flight has led to the weakening of national
economic power, as key industries relocate to regions with fewer regulations, diminishing the
state's authority over its own economy.

In the context of global interdependence, while some argue that the rise of global networks
diminishes state sovereignty, the reality is more complex. Global interdependence, which
encourages cooperation between countries and the removal of territorial barriers, does not
inherently undermine the state's role. In fact, the state remains essential in supporting global
finance and maintaining the conditions necessary for international cooperation, such as national
security and infrastructure. However, interdependence also highlights the asymmetry between
the developed and developing worlds, as the global economic order often favors wealthy
nations and transnational capital over the needs of poorer countries.

The decline of organized labor has also contributed to the diminishing power of the state. As
transnational corporations have become more influential, they have systematically weakened
the power of labor unions through practices like relocating industries to regions with lower labor
costs and less stringent labor laws. This has led to increased inequality, as a global elite of
skilled professionals grows in power while low-skilled workers are left marginalized. The state’s
retreat from economic intervention has been accompanied by the rise of a new class structure,
where skilled professionals align across borders, further empowering international capital while
weakening labor's influence.

Despite these challenges, the state has not been passive. It has played an active role in
facilitating the concentration of power by transnational capital. States have supported policies
that align with global capital interests, aiding in the internationalization of production and
finance. While states may have lost some control over their national economies, they remain
crucial in mediating capital flows and ensuring global financial stability. The state's role has thus
shifted from direct economic control to a more complex function of managing the integration of
global capital into national and international systems.

In conclusion, while the state's ability to regulate its economy has been significantly diminished
by global financial flows and the changing nature of labor and production, it still plays a crucial
role in the international political economy. The state's role has transformed rather than
disappeared, as it continues to act as a mediator between global finance and national economic
interests. The state remains a vital player in managing global economic integration, even as its
traditional powers have been redefined in the face of globalization.

Global Communication and Political Space

The nation-state system is deeply connected to technological advancements, and its ability to
function effectively is shaped by changes in technology and communication systems.
Historically, different social formations have been linked to the technological systems of their
time. For example, the monarchical empires were supported by primitive technologies, while the
rise of the modern nation-state coincided with the innovations of the industrial revolution, such
as the railroad, post, and telegraph systems. The late 20th century, however, saw revolutionary
changes in science and technology, especially in communication and information, which have
significantly altered the basis of the post-Westphalian inter-state system. The impact of these
changes is described by scholar Ichiel de Sola Pool, who notes that satellites have made
communication distances almost equal across their coverage area, challenging traditional
borders and reshaping political and social structures.

One key feature of technology is its ideology-neutral nature. It does not inherently serve any
particular ideological function, although the values of Western modernity have historically driven
technological progress globally. Despite this, the use of technology has always been guided by
ideologies that influence its social applications, often driven by ethnocentric Western
perspectives. This has resulted in a dynamic of inclusion or exclusion, as well as the potential
for both subjugation and liberation. Even though some scholars long for a return to simpler
times, reversing historical progress is not feasible. The future, it seems, will be shaped by
technological fault lines, and how social communication and cultural practices interact with
these divides will play a significant role in shaping future political landscapes.

The effect of the communication revolution on the nation-state's long-term survival is difficult to
predict. Marshall McLuhan, a leading communication theorist, argues that technology is shifting
human consciousness from a linear, visual concept of space to a more acoustic and
simultaneous one. In his view, the electronic age represents a serious challenge to the
dominance of traditional, structured political systems. Modern media and telecommunication
systems have the power to change human consciousness and create new cultural forms.
However, the world of international communication is far from free or egalitarian. It is heavily
influenced by Western knowledge practices, and the flow of communication from the Global
South to the North is disproportionately small. Despite this, theorists like McLuhan suggest that
political boundaries may become irrelevant due to technological advancements in
communication and information technologies, which are so pervasive that they transcend
national borders with ease, even against sovereign intent. This could lead to a redefinition of
cultural space.

Although scholars in the communication field may not always focus on the political implications
of these changes, their work underscores the importance of technology in the globalization of
finance, resources, and labor. They argue that technology, rather than political forces, is the
driving force behind these global transformations. While these scholars may overlook political
dimensions, their insights into the role of communication technology in shaping globalization
should not be underestimated. The rapid spread of communication technologies could
potentially diminish the relevance of traditional political boundaries, forcing a reevaluation of the
state’s role in a globalized world.