Evaluate the extent to which the impact of globalisation on the state system has been exaggerated.

Hyperglobalisers would argue that the strongest evidence which shows that the impact of globalisation on the state system has not been exaggerated is the effect that economic globalisation has had. Economic globalisation arguably brings about a degree of interconnectedness and interdependence which leads to a ‘borderless’ world in which states are penetrated by external influences much more than in the past. This has been highlighted by the Bretton Woods organisations such as the World Trade Organisation which impact on state sovereignty through promoting global free markets and free trade. This organisation has 164 members in 2018 since Afghanistan joined most recently in 2016 and promotes interconnectedness within the global markets. Those who believe that the impact has not been exaggerated would point to the global financial crisis of 2007-2008. This global economic crisis penetrated borders due to the increased interdependence of states and international liberalisation of many markets. This was also encouraged by the expanding crucial role of trans-national cooperation’s (TNCs) in the global society. This change means that states are forced to make policies which look attractive and accommodating for these TNCs subsequently meaning they have huge financial influence on states. This shows that globalisation has impacted the freedom that states have to make their own, unadulterated policies. Many liberals see this economic globalisation as also, according to the Dell Theory, integral in binding countries within the same global supply chain which prevents conflict and encourages states to cooperate. What this means is that sovereign states are arguably losing their ability to make choices without taking into account the importance of economic globalisation and the liberal economic ideals which dominate global society showing that globalisation has had an impact on the state system. On the other hand, the stronger argument for the importance of economic globalisation would be that of the sceptics. They would argue that hyperglobalisers and liberals underestimate the role of national economies within their analysis of the impact of globalisation. Sovereign states, even with the impact of globalisation are still the most important actors in determining the lives of their citizens through the independent economic choices they make. This is evident within the UK as it commits to concentrating its funds on infrastructure with the construction of HS2 or the announcement that the national living wage will be raised for over 25s in 2019. This shows that although many argue that economic globalisation has impacted state sovereignty, evidently states are still able to make change and decisions which impact their country and citizens without its power being diminished by globalisation. The argument that the growth of TNC’s was creating what was perceived as unchallengeable economic principles was shown to be false when Trump won the US presidential election with a protectionist manifesto. Moreover, the sceptics argument is evidently stronger due to the fact that although some countries such as Chile and Argentina have recently signed ambitious free trade agreements, America has been seen to put in place more protectionist policies under Trump such as the abandonment of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Therefore, although there has been a change to the role of the state within the global society due to globalisation is the stronger argument to state that the impact has been exaggerated. States still retain the power to control economic policies internally and the sovereignty of states is emphasised by the actions of Trump as his protectionist actions highlight that states still have the ability to opt out of the economic liberal policies of free trade which globalisation encourages.