Article Discussion #2: S. Strange: "The Declining Authority of States"

Susan Strange argues in her article "The Declining Authority of States" that in the end of the twentieth century, there has been a global phenomenon in which nation-states have significantly lost a great deal of power over domestic affairs and markets. She believes that the average citizen can probably be better trusted on the affairs of state than the politicians, and that previously held scholarly assumptions and theories about politics, economics, and international relations must be reconsidered in the current age of globalization. Some of the concepts that must be reexamined are 1) the limitations of politics, 2) the nature of power in society and where it comes from, 3) how necessary it is to have authority in a market economy, and 4) the nature of the international community and how state actors behave within it.

Strange proposes the theory that due to the integration of world markets and their liberalization in the post-war period, the forces of those markets have become more dominant and powerful than the nation-states which are meant to control the economy. Not only has the market become the dominant power in society, but states have also diffused a great deal of power to other institutions and to local and regional organizations. Ironically, at the same time, it might appear to the average civilian that state authority in the private life of citizens is growing. However, contempt and disillusionment with this idea further contributes to the decline of state authority.

"The need for a political authority of some kind, legitimated either by coercive force or by popular consent, or more often by a combination of the two, is the fundamental reason for the state's existence", Strange writes, but she claims that many states are lacking these necessities.

Another paradox she explains is that while many industrialized nations are losing authority, there is a growing collection of ethnic nations that are vying for statehood. Yet those that achieve it are only granted symbolic power, while international markets retain the real authority which governments cannot control. Strange also cites another argument that might be used against her claim: the success of Asian states which have used state control over the economy to prosper and develop. However, she argues that these states were very lucky, and hence exceptions to the rule. Eventually, Strange believes that the Asian states will also fall victim to the international political economy and pressures to liberalize their markets, and then their states will lose authority as well.

Technology and its accelerating advancement and expansion is one major factor Strange believes has been overlooked in examinations of the current international political economy, especially in the aspect of the military. She points out that post-Cold War, two ideas about nuclear technology have changed in ways that drastically alter politics. For one, most fears of nuclear destruction have been calmed. But secondly, the possibility of nuclear warfare and destruction of the planet has become something uncontrollable by state power. It may or may not ever happen, but there's not much any state government can do to stop it. One of the most basic responsibilities of the state is defense, and if technology undermines that capacity, then the necessity of state authority becomes far less imperative.

Another area Strange believes has been neglected in current studies is that of states' financial alliances with transnational corporations. TNCs can invest in states and benefit from the development of new technology - but the drive for ever-better technology raises the economic stakes. As long as states can enjoy the investment of TNCs without suffering the majority of the costs, there will be such alliances. The obsession with technological improvement and its expense has made money all the more valuable in the international economy. Markets have become more important and more powerful in determining international relations that governments are, and this is often overlooked by modern scholars.

Strange postulates three major premises. 1) Political activity is not restricted solely to political officials. 2) Markets have become the impersonal, indirect authority over political outcomes. 3) Power over both societies and economies is exercised by, and acknowledged to be in the hands of, non-state actors. Domestic sovereignty can no longer be safely assumed to be controlled by the nation-state. Major technological and financial changes, along with the integration of global markets, has severely weakened the authority of governments. Additionally, many states are becoming powerless to fulfill their responsibilities, but there is nothing to take up the slack for them - neither intergovernmental institutions nor a major hegemonic power is there to fill the gaps. The state governments' diffusion of power has left a major lack of authority.

I find it difficult to formulate an opinion on this article because it raises more questions than reactions for me.

- If it is true that states are losing authority to market forces, then what is going to happen to domestic and international affairs? Will social politics and military actions ultimately be dictated by the market? Can economic forces be deciding factors for every kind of political decision?

- Even if citizens' faith in their state governments is waning, won't they still expect and demand the institution of government authority? Most people would probably prefer a powerless government over anarchy.

- What will market control over political affairs mean for the average citizen? If all priorities are determined by a global capitalist economy, what will happen to non-financial political decisions? If social welfare is neglected completely for the sake of "the market", will citizens rebel against a system that denies their needs?

- In the event of total domination of political affairs by the global capitalist market, will governments start trying to prevent their loss of power? Will regional and intergovernmental bodies grow or diminish? Who will take over when Strange's concepts "non-authority" or "ungovernance" become real and evident to the wider population?