The article analyzes the impacts that globalization has on the economies of countries, otherwise referred to as globalization thesis. It is based on the politics of Britain, its economy, involvement in the European Union and its policies. The author, John Dearlove, is most probably a professor of political studies from the University of Sussex, an economist or/and a political analyst. While giving his opinions on the politics of Britain, he says that “for those of them who work within the British political science, it is important to set certain lessons”. He could also be a professor because of the inclusion of the University of Sussex after his name. Lastly, his knowledge of world economies, politics, studies and theories of global relationships is amazing. This is because he seems to emphasize what students of politics should understand and learn about globalization. He is also well conversant with world economies and their performance in relation to globalization and politics.
Students of political science must expand their knowledge of modern politics to include other variables, such as pressure groups, other than just the country’s formal institutions, laws and the constitution. The article discusses the relationship between a nation state and global economy.
There are arguments that presently countries have limited autonomy in shaping their policies as that would risk capital flight (Dearlove & Saunders, 2000, p.166). In this sense, they have no control of their economies, such as in increasing exchange rates, because globalization restricts them. It also comments on the argument that globalization has rendered states powerless. The globalization thesis that this article discusses is the argument that globalization has political and economic impact on a country. In an attempt to make the topic comprehensible, the author has provided literature from other sources that support his arguments and theories. Finally, he sets some lessons for people who work within British politics.
Globalization has become an important concept in the society and as such, students and political analysts must pay attention to its trends and impacts on the economies of countries (Dearlove & Saunders, 2000, p. 127). It has enabled economic, environmental, political and cultural events in one country to have an effect on other countries. Because of this, it is important for political students to understand the politics of economies as well as the impacts globalization. The recent debate about globalization focuses on its consequences and how people can shape its changes in a way that they benefit from it. Debates also focus on the changes it brings to corporate power, as well as the inequalities associated with it. There are arguments that globalization breeds inequalities as some nations benefit while others do not.
Through the expansion of free trade and markets, it has been argued that more developed countries are the big gainers while developing countries suffer. There are concerns that globalization drains away employment and economic activities from developed economies to the developing economies (World Bank, 2009, p. 78). This is because globalization results in job losses as firms switch their production to nations that have low labor costs. Despite these claims, other studies find no link between the development of inequality and free trade expansion. In contrast, poor economies that embrace open trade usually perform better than those that remain closed. Inequalities fundamentally come from an overextended state power, corruption, technological change and demographic changes. Less developed countries desperately need to bond with other nations in order to prosper.
Through the study of politics in Britain, the author explains his views on some issues relating to globalization. First, people always think that globalization tendencies usually limit the actions of contemporary societies. In this view, politicians use globalization as a political device in establishing what is economically feasible. This claim is true, as we witness current politicians gearing their agendas towards globalization, and using it as a measure of what is economically feasible (Vaidya, 2006, p.83). Secondly, the author argues that financial globalization increases pressure on politicians to seek firm monetary policies in their countries. In addition, it becomes harder for countries to control their domestic money supply and long-term interest rates. This is also true because globalization effects fluctuate and affect the economies of all countries that are open to it. Because of the involvement of many countries, it is difficult for countries to maintain tight policies on their domestic money. It also becomes difficult for them to predict future performance of their markets and control interest rates or money supply.
The third concern relates to the lack of a grand theory that links international economy, national politics and world politics, and aid in understanding public policy making. The author also states that it is important to recognize other state functions other than economic management and monetary policies in policymaking. A government contains different institutions that are responsible for different functions, especially during policymaking, 2005, p.11). To have comprehensive and effective policies, it is important to include all these functions (Peter, & Dilyar 2005, p. 79). In relation to this, British students must explore the country’s inclusion in international organizations, especially its attachment in the European Union together with the development of international laws. The European Union is geared towards integrating conventional ideas, and because of this it exerts a fundamental impact upon the financial performance of nations, as well as their relationships with other members.
British students interested in political science must understand and be wary of intellectual fashions that politicians use concerning globalization. They must reflect on globalization impacts and expand their understanding of its challenges.