Does Globalization put an end to state power? Globalization is one of the hottest topics in numerous fields of this world. The article answers the question about the role of national power in the era of Globalization. This essay has three main points. First of all, this article wants to analyse Globalization and state power in the world political economy. Second is the reason that makes nation power becoming irrelevant in the era of Globalization. Last but not least, on the other side of the argument, the essay illustrates that Globalization declines the role of state power but does not put an end to it. Since the 1990s, "Globalization" has become one of the essential terms in the world. This term was used for the first time in the 1970s to refer to the Euro-driven conquest of non-European regions in the nineteenth century and the aim to merge them into a global trading system (Modelski,1972). Nevertheless, this term did not become common until it was widely employed by the United States' business schools in the 1980s. Any challenges of commercial activities could lead to a reduction in economic well-being (Chesnair, 1994). Some schools of thought suggest that Globalization has evolved tremendously as an economic, social, technological, and politically integrative process as a result of the nation-active state's engagement in market liberalization and rapid development, as well as trade harmonization (Jotia, 2011). In fact, most of these textbooks use Manfred B. Steger's definition of Globalization as "a set of social processes that appear to transform our present social conditions of nationality into one of globality." (Barrow, Keck, 2017). Globality, according to Steger (1972), signifies "a social condition characterized by tight global economic, political, cultural, and environmental connections and flows that make most of the currently existing borders and boundaries irrelevant." Generally speaking, Globalization is a process of enormously increasing the relationships, influences, interactions, and interdependence of all countries in terms of economic, social, political, cultural, and environmental. So Globalization in the 2000s has a qualitative change in international politics. To put it another way, Globalization has not only changed the thought of people and groups and the way they identify themselves but also the way nations, firms, and other actors aware and get their interests (Woods, 2000) State power State power is a very complex and dynamic term with no one theory or theoretical method capable of fully capturing and explaining its structural and strategic dynamics (Jessop, 2009). State theorists are still debating how to characterize state power for a long time appropriately. According to Besley and Persson (2010), State power is defined as the state's ability to broadcast power (military, police), and state capacity captures the capacity of the state to collect taxes and enforce property rights. According to Nicos Poulantzas, who borrowed the idea from Marx's concept, it is vital to explore that capital is a social relation, the characteristics of the state as an institutional ensemble, as well as their implications for the strategic selectivity of state power (Jessop, 2009). Marxist approaches (1886) State power as a social connection mediated by juridico-political institutions, state capacities, and political organizations between political forces. "The power of the modern state principally concerns not 'state elite' exercising state power over society but a tightening state-society relation, caging social relations over the nation than local-regional or transitional terrain, thus politicizing and geo-politicizing far more of a social life than had earlier state" (Mann, 1993). These characteristics emphasise the role of the state in political life, having enough powers and resources to protect the fundamental values of society. However, when the globalization process becomes more and more exciting, political power in general and state power in particular also have important changes. Burbules and Torres (2000) argue that Globalization has some key characteristics that put a significant effect on the nation-state's role. They classified the factors according to the economic dimension and political terms. The first reason is Globalization raises the influence of non-state actors such as globally integrated transnational enterprises (TNEs), multinational enterprises (MNEs) and the appearance of global supply chains and investment between nations. According to UNCTAD data, in 1998 there were 53,000 transnational companies with 450,000 subsidiaries in many different countries around the world. In 2000, there were about 63,000 transnational companies in the world with 700,000 subsidiaries in all countries. In 1995, transnational companies sold $7 trillion in goods and services. In 1999, the total sales of the transnational company reached a value of 14 trillion USD. According to WTO statistics, currently, transnational firms dominate and control over 80% of the world trade, 4/5 of foreign direct investment capital, and 9/10 of technology transfer research results in the world. The data above show that the development of integrated transnational and multinational enterprises plays an essential role in changing the states and global economies. Transnational banks facilitate trade and help to reduce political borders, making national economies interdependent through international loans and investments. The financial strength and global reach of integrated transnational enterprises and multinational corporations give it the ability to make decisions on many issues over which national political leaders have little control. The distinctions between the public and private sectors, culture and media the private sector and the public sector, are becoming increasingly blurred The country's management, which was previously considered a monopoly of the state's work, is now shared with a variety of other companies, either directly or indirectly, in various forms. It leads to the fall of power in a single country in the global political economy. This dense system of transnational companies has not only created an important part of the world's productive forces but also linked countries together more and more closely, contributing to the process of Globalization being deeper than ever. In addition, the inexpensive and rapid mobility of capital, raw materials, components, manufactured goods, and information has changed and at times disrupted, old relationships between trade, investment, and domestic economic policy. When countries exchange goods and services for each other, it is also the process of countries gradually erasing the isolation between national economies. That also leads to the rapidly grown of world trade. During the 100 years from 1850 to 1948, world trade increased tenfold, and in the next 50 years, from 1948 to 1997, 17 times. From the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s, the average growth in world exports was 4.5%. During this period, which began in 1985, the average annual growth rate of world merchandise exports was 6.7%, while world output increased only six times. The evolution of world trade and the widening gap between economic growth and international trade represents an increasingly large share of GDP: the United States is 76%, Canada is 80%, Japan is 65%, and EC is 64% (WTO statistics). According to this formula, countries have lost much of the ability to influence the speed of international financial transactions, business investment, the value of their currencies, and inflation through fiscal and monetary policies, macroeconomics because the spatial timing for economic decision-making is broader or does not correspond to the territorial boundaries of nation-states. These economic trends are seen to be creating conflict between the market necessities of an open global economy, on the one side, and the nation-state exercising its conventional sovereign rights on behalf of residents residing in the otherwise claimed area, on the other side (Barrow, 2017). Second, as a consequence of Globalization, a new set of political problems stems from the irrationality of dealing with economic, cultural, social, and environmental policy issues that originate in or extend beyond the territorial boundaries of individual countries. The word "interdependence" has long been used by international relations (IR) theorists to characterize the tendency of political globalization. According to international relations theory, “Interdependence” is a policy relationship between nation-states in which one government's domestic policy actions inevitably have an impact on other governments, whether intended or not, and numerous obstacles prevent a government from achieving its domestic policy goals unilaterally, necessitating cooperation from other governments (Barrow, 2017). This tendency is characterized by a rise in the number and importance of international, supranational, and multinational organizations, which are taking on more responsibility for the coordination and implementation of international policy initiatives in areas once considered sacred areas of domestic sovereignty and national independence (Calhoun,1997). Regional and global intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) such as the United Nations, European Union, World Trade Organization (WTO), World Bank (WB), International Monetary Fund (IMF), and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)... has activities that cover virtually every aspect of political, social and economic activity and can unite people from different societies within the transnational network. These organizations operate across national borders, push their own agendas, and interfere in the political decisions of countries (Bui, Tran, 2019). Organizations such as the WTO, the World Bank, and the IMF all attach strict conditions to their loans, making political demands related to democratization and privatization, which can undermine the rules of prohibiting interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states, including in economic management activities within the territorial jurisdiction of states. First, International institutions create reform pressures, affecting the political structure of countries that want to join (Keely, 2004). Because there are conditions for joining international institutions, countries that want to join must meet all the conditions and have the support of members. To be able to become a member of an international institution, countries are forced to change their domestic regulations and laws and to create a legal corridor following common commitments and in accordance with laws, standards, and practices of international relations (Trinh, 2016) This somewhat reduces advantages in terms of institutions and domestic policies that form countries' power. Cause command commitments and laws of international institutions that are built on the consensus of countries aim to ensure that all members have an equal environment for cooperation and development. It means that state power is reduced when a country joins an international institution. Second, International institutions can weaken national power by narrowing the resources under the control of the national state to control the socioeconomic situation and reduce legitimacy and rights, the state's power over the public. In international institutions, coalition membership can bring many benefits, but it often comes at the expense of a nation's autonomy in policy-making, leading to a decline in government power. The governing body of the country (especially with regard to macroeconomic management) determines its political structure (Trinh, 2016). It is not that governments are incapable of governing but that they must manage national politics in the face of growing pressures that must adapt to transnational economic forces. At the same time, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are becoming more visible, with activities that are now dictating solutions to issues that were previously considered governmentrelated. NGOs and global advocacy groups have influenced political decisions at all levels, from international to regional, national, and local, by setting political agendas, promoting normative change, and assisting voters in pursuing the policies they support, thanks to their expertise, and organisational flexibility, and broad bases. Despite the fact that they are not elected by the people, these groups have the ability to create new norms by exerting pressure on governments or altering popular perceptions of government duties. While non-governmental organisations (NGOs) shape the tastes and values of their members, who are also state citizens, countries cannot protect their citizens from the general scientific and technological revolution, and information in particular, and must therefore share the political stage with these non-traditional actors. Economic and social organisations, as well as social movements, are active and well-represented in each country. They construct a powerful power monitoring mechanism and put a lot of pressure on the government to exercise political power. People do not automatically accept any power distribution and make rising demands on the moral basis of human rights, thanks to an expanding high level of information and knowledge from numerous and different sources. Military might and expertise, together with economic power, have become fundamental issues in enacting social changes and political decisions; they have become a crucial component in defining a nation's strength, weakness, and collapse. As a result, as government officials shape foreign policy, they encounter an increase in the "thickness" of Globalization – or the density of interdependent networks. It also means that the impact of events in one geographic area, economically or ecologically, can profoundly affect other geographical areas, be it military or social (Nye, 2007). These international networks are becoming increasingly complex, and therefore, their impact is becoming more difficult to predict. However, on the other side of the argument, Waltz and Mearsheimer argue that, rather than being weakened by Globalization, nation-states, especially the most powerful ones, have enlarged their control over the international system through the process of Globalization (Barrow, 2017). In fact, Globalization is associated with an increase in the gap between the rich and the poor in many ways. Globalization is not synonymous with homogeneity or equality (Nye, 2007). Globalization has blurred national borders, but that does not mean borders are no longer relevant. This argument is strongly supported when researching great power's behaviour in global politics. Currently, developed countries hold threequarters of the world's production capacity, three-quarters of the international trade quota, and are the primary investment and attraction places for foreign direct investment flows (in 1999 out of 827 billion USD). In total foreign direct investment capital globally, developed countries account for 609 billion USD, the EU alone is nearly 300 billion USD, and the United States is nearly 200 billion USD). The world's largest transnational companies are also located mainly in developed countries. These countries also hold the most modern technology, inventions, inventions, knowhow, and other brain products. This is also a place that continuously attracts the "grey matter" of the whole world. In addition, economic, financial, monetary, and international trade institutions such as the WTO. IMF, WB... are all under the domination of developed countries, led by the US. With such great economic powers, developed countries are dominating the global economy. Take the United State as a case study, the era of Globalization marks the widespread spread of concepts like Microsoft, Apple mobile phones, Coca-cola, McDonald's, Disney, and almost social networks that we use today, such as Facebook, Youtube or Twitter are America's products. It not only is cultural Globalization of the American to the world but also is used as the soft power of great power in international relations In addition, American companies have much larger profit shares than those from other countries in most industries, particularly in technologically sophisticated fields. In actuality, American leadership has grown in six sectors over the previous six years (Aerospace and Defense; Casinos, Hotels and Restaurants; Computer Hardware and Software; Financial Services; Media; Transportation), and has gained ground in four more (Auto, Truck and Motorcycle; Heavy Machinery; Retail; Utilities) (Starr, 2013). The United States has now become a "superpower" (Hyperpuissance) because the United States has outperformed other countries in terms of economy, currency, technology military, lifestyle, language, and mass culture products (Tran, 2012). America has been unleashing those strengths to the world in order to mould people into the American way of thinking, living, and acting. Singapore Education Minister Teo Chee Hean once said at a conference in France on the 20th anniversary of the founding of the French Institute of International Relations (IFRI) that: "It is unfortunate that globalization is, in fact, an Americanization". It can be denied that the countries and people who have the dominant power of Globalization see it as an opportunity to bring progress to themselves and try to take advantage of its positive aspects. It is erroneous to speak of the state's "collapse", as long as the nation-state is a crucial actor and participant in the building, management, and control of the globalisation process, and as long as its domestic regulatory and coercive powers grow stronger by the day. Furthermore, the supranational institutions that now enforce globalisation rules operate within an asymmetrical power structure, in which subaltern nation-states, primarily in the global South, must accept the rules and norms of American capitalism, or so-called global-Western capitalism, in order to participate in the global system of trade and production (Barrow, 2017). In conclusion, this essay wants to answer the question "Does globalization put an end to state power?". It can be denied that Globalization has a lot of influence on state power. Globalization mark the appearance and development of integrated transnational enterprises (TNEs), multinational enterprises (MNEs), along with investment capital, and the global supply chain, which lead to the change in the policy-making process and economic government of all countries. In addition, a fresh set of political issues resulting from the absurdity of dealing with concerns of economic, cultural, social, and environmental policy also promote the "interdependence" as a trend of political Globalization; it is performed via the role of international institutions, namely WTO, the UN, WHO,.. and international non-government organization in solving global issues. However, great power's behaviour shows that they consolidated their grip on the international system via the export of Western culture, their rules in all international institutions and the impact of integrated transnational enterprises, multinational enterprises that almost come from the United State and Western countries. As a result, states' power becomes irrelevant in the era of Globalization, but on the other side of the argument, Globalization can not put an end to state power as long as nationstates still are the leading actor in the always-changing global political economy. Reference Altvater, E. (1972). Notes on Some Problems of State Interventionism. Probleme Des Klassenkampfs, (3). Barrow, C. W., & Keck, M. (2017). Globalization theory and state theory: The false antinomy. Studies in Political Economy, 98(2), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/07078552.2017.1342999 Besley, T., & Persson, T. (2010). State Capacity, conflict and development. Econometrica, 78(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.3386/w15088 Bui, H. V., & Tran, T. V. (2019). Su phan tan quyen luc chinh tri trong boi canh toan cau hoa. Calhoun, C. J. (2004). Nationalism. Univ. of Minnesota Press. Chesnais François. (1998). La Mondialisation du capital. Syros. Falk, R., & Strauss, A. (2001). Toward global parliament. Foreign Affairs, 80(1), 212. https://doi.org/10.2307/20050054 Gilpin, J. M., & Gilpin, R. (2001). Global political economy: Understanding the international economic order. Princeton University Press. Jessop, B. (2009). The state and power. The SAGE Handbook of Power, 367–382. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857021014.n20 Jotia, A. L. (2011). Globalization and the Nation-State: Sovereignty and State Welfare in Jeopardy. Kelley, J. (2004). International actors on the domestic scene: Membership conditionality and socialization by international institutions. International Organization, 58(03). https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818304583017 Modelski, G. (1972). Principles of World Politics. Free Press. Tran, C. V. (2012). No. 35 - Thach thuc cua qua trinh toan cau hoa doi voi cac nuoc dang phat trien. Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam. Trinh, X. T. (2016). Nhung tac dong cua cac the che quoc te den nha nuoc quoc gia trong boi canh toan cau hoa. Weiss, L. (2000). Globalization and State Power. Development and Society, 29(1), 1–15. Woods, N. (2000). The political economy of Globalization. Macmillan Press.
