• David Lockwood


A strange thing happened to the world’s economies, on their way to the end of the twentieth century. A unique thing — and yet, because it happened virtually everywhere and with considerable rapidity, its uniqueness was quickly forgotten. It was that the world’s governments, of every size and political complexion, seemingly on their own initiative, all began implementing economic policies that looked strikingly similar. ‘Left wing’ programmes of state management, income redistribution and full employment went out. ‘Right wing’ ones that emphasized the importance of the private sector, of market forces and individual initiative came in. The political labels of the governments in question were irrelevant to the process. Nowhere was this more obvious than when Australian and French social democrats (in the 1980s), followed by Indians and Greeks (in the 1990s) dutifully fell into line.


Foreign Direct Investment World Economy National State World Market Productive Force 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    See The Economist, 17 April 1993, p. 11. On the shift in the world economy, see Mathew Horsman and Andrew Marshall, After the Nation-State, London: Harper Collins, 1995, pp. xii–xiiiGoogle Scholar
  2. Susan Strange, ‘The Defective State’, Daedalus, 124 (2), 1995, pp. 55–74 at p. 63.Google Scholar
  3. 2.
    On size, see Susan Strange, ‘New World Order: Conflict and Co-operation’, Marxism Today, January 1991, pp. 30–3 at pp. 30–1; Horsman and Marshall, After the Nation-State, p. 187. On territory see Jean-Marie Guéhenno, The End of the Nation-State, Minneapolis, 1995, p. 8: Peter Evans, ‘The Eclipse of the State?’, World Politics, 50 (1), October 1977, pp. 62–87 at p. 66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    See The Economist, 7 December 1991, p. 84; Frank J. Comes, Christopher Power et al., ‘21st Century Capitalism’, Business Week, 12 December 1994, pp. 16–65 at p. 22.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bill Warren, Imperialism: Pioneer of Capitalism, London: Verso, 1980, p. 182.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    World Bank, World Development Report 1987, New York: Oxford University Press, 1987 (especially the chapters on ‘The role of government’, ‘Trade policy and industrialization’ and ‘Trade policy and reform’).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    World Bank, World Development Indicators, 1998; David Goldblatt et al., ‘Economic Globalization and the Nation State’, Alternatives, 22 (3), 1997, pp. 269–85 at p. 273Google Scholar
  8. World Bank, The Economist, ‘Survey of World Trade’, 3 October 1998, p. 3.Google Scholar
  9. 8.
    Robin Murray, ‘The Internationalisation of Capital and the Nation State’ in Hugo Radice (ed.), International Firms and Modern Imperialism, Penguin 1975, pp. 107–34 at p. 128.Google Scholar
  10. 9.
    Robert Reich, ‘Who Is Them?’, Harvard Business Review, March–April 1991, pp. 77–88 at p. 84; World Bank, World Development Indicators 1998.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    David James, ‘The Good, the Bad, and the Multinational’, Business Review Weekly, 17 March 1997, pp. 68–71.Google Scholar
  12. 13.
    Stephen Kobrin, ‘The Architecture of Globalization’, in John H. Dunning (ed.), Governments, Globalization and International Business, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997 pp. 150–1.Google Scholar
  13. Kang Chen, ‘The Failure of Recentralization in China’, in Arye L. Hillman (ed.), Markets and Politicians: Politicised Economic Choice, Boston: Kluwer, 1991.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gomez in Janice McCormick and Nan Stone, ‘From National Champion to Global Competitor’, Harvard Business Review, May –June 1990, pp. 127–35 at p. 135.Google Scholar
  15. 16.
    Evans, ‘Eclipse’, p. 66; Stephen Kobrin, ‘Regional Integration in a Globally Networked Economy’, Transnational Corporations, 4 (2), August 1995, pp. 15–23 at p. 16; James, ‘The Good’, p. 69.Google Scholar
  16. 18.
    Robert Reich, The Work of Nations, New York: Knopf, 1991, p. 141Google Scholar
  17. Hugo Radice, ‘The National Economy: a Keynesian Myth?’, Capital & Class, No. 22, Spring 1984, pp. 111–40 at p. 135Google Scholar
  18. Barnevik in William Taylor, ‘The Logic of Global Business’, Harvard Business Review, March–April 1991, pp. 91–105 at p. 94.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stephen H. Hymer, The Multinational Corporation: a Radical Approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979, p. 90.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    N. Harris, Of Bread and Guns: the World Economy in Crisis, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1983, p. 235.Google Scholar
  21. Lennard Zinn, ‘Phenomenal Shimano’, Bicycle Action, 7 (6), September 1991, pp. 50–3 at p. 50.Google Scholar
  22. 21.
    James Roderick cited in David Harvey, The Condition of Post-Modernity, Oxford: Blackwell, 1989 p. 158.Google Scholar
  23. 26.
    Harris, Bread and Guns, p. 122; Kenichi Ohmae, The Borderless World, London: Collins, 1990, p. 10.Google Scholar
  24. Vincent Cable, ‘Globalisation: Can the State Strike Back?’, The World Today, 52 (5), May 1996, pp. 133–7 at p. 135.Google Scholar
  25. 27.
    See Reich, ‘Who Is Them?’, p. 80; Reich, Work, p. 110; Ohmae, Borderless World, p. 9; Theodore Levitt, The Marketing Imagination, New York: Free Press, 1986, pp. 21–2; Horsman and Marshall, After the Nation State, p. 202.Google Scholar
  26. 30.
    Kevin Robins, ‘Global Times’, Marxism Today, December 1989, pp. 20–7 at p. 21.Google Scholar
  27. 34.
    John Naisbitt, Global Paradox, St Leonards: Allen & Unwin, 1994, p. 13.Google Scholar
  28. 36.
    Amy Borrus et al., ‘Can Japan’s Giants Cut the Apron Strings?’, Business Week, 14 May 1990, pp. 59–60 at p. 60.Google Scholar
  29. 40.
    See Anthony Brewer, Marxist Theories of Imperialism, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1990, p. 114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. J. Morris Wood’s account of the real origins of APEC (‘Business Dragged Government into Apec’ — letter to The Australian, 6 January 1996.Google Scholar
  31. 42.
    Nan Stone, ‘The Globalization of Europe’, Harvard Business Review, May/June 1989, pp. 90–5 at p. 93.Google Scholar
  32. 46.
    Radice, ‘Keynesian Myth?’, p. 135. See also Dick Bryan, The Chase Across the Globe, Boulder: Westview Press, 1995, p. 38.Google Scholar
  33. 49.
    Paul Hirst and Grahame Thompson, ‘The Problem of “Globalization”’, Economy and Society, 21 (4), November 1992, pp. 357–96 at p. 366. Despite their initial statement that coming up with a definitive position on globalization is ‘a rather difficult task… and the answer quite uncertain’, answer they do, with strong statements like ‘globalization has not taken place and is unlikely to do so’ (p. 393). Yet along the way they concede that there is a combination of an ‘internationalized’ and a ‘globalized’ economy in which the latter could ‘subsume’ the former (p. 365); and that national governments are economically weaker in relation to international capital (pp. 362, 368, 370, 371). The argument is repeated in Globalization in Question, Cambridge: Polity, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 50.
    UNCTAD, World Investment Report 1996, New York, 1996.Google Scholar
  35. 52.
    World Development Indicators 1998; Stefan Wagstyl, ‘Eyes in New Frontiers’, Financial Times, 27 September 1996.Google Scholar
  36. 53.
    UNCTAD, World Investment Report 1993, 1993, p. 21.Google Scholar
  37. 54.
    UNCTAD, World Investment Report 1997, 1997, p. xvii.Google Scholar
  38. 57.
    Nigel Harris, ‘Export Processing in Mexico’, Journal of Development Studies, 27 (1), October 1990, pp. 117–25 at p. 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 66.
    Paul R. Krugman, ‘A Global Economy is Not the Wave of the Future’, Financial Executive, March/April 1992, pp. 10–13; Hirst and Thompson, ‘The Problem of Globalization’, pp. 369 ff.Google Scholar
  40. 68.
    Stephen Kobrin, ‘Regional Integration in a Globally Networked Economy’, Transnational Corporations, 4 (2), August 1995, pp. 15–23 at pp. 17–18.Google Scholar
  41. 76.
    Peter Svedburg, ‘Colonial Enforcement of Foreign Direct Investment’, The Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies, 49 (1), March 1981, p. 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 77.
    John H. Dunning, Explaining International Production, London: Unwin, 1988, pp. 76, 107.Google Scholar
  43. 88.
    See John Holloway, ‘Global Capital and the Nation State’, Capital & Class, No. 52, Spring 1994, pp. 23–49 at p. 41; Financial Review, 2 January 1992, p. 16; Harris, Bread and Guns, p. 20.Google Scholar
  44. 96.
    See Cable, ‘Globalisation’, p. 136; Robert Heilbroner, The Nature and Logic of Capitalism, New York: Norton & Co, 1985, p. 94; Horsman and Marshall, After the Nation-State, p. 176; Vernon, ‘Transnational Corporations’, p. 37. Even Hirst and Thompson admit that the increasing trade between industrial economies ‘has had an inevitable impact on the ability of industrial economies to exercise national macro-management strategies’ (‘The Problem of “Globalization”’, p. 368).Google Scholar
  45. 101.
    See Peter Landers, ‘Playing with Numbers’, Far Eastern Economic Review, 5 November 1998, p. 58.Google Scholar
  46. 105.
    Chris Harman, ‘The Storm Breaks’, International Socialism, Spring 1990, pp. 3–93 at p. 63.Google Scholar
  47. 111.
    See Andrew Watson, The Evolution of International Society, London & New York: Routledge, 1992, p. 307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 118.
    Richard Robison, Indonesia: the Rise of Capital, Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1986, p. 395.Google Scholar
  49. 124.
    Stephen D. Krasner, Defending the National Interest, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978, pp. 331–3.Google Scholar
  50. 132.
    World Bank, World Development Report 1997: The State in a Changing World, New York 1997; UNCTAD, World Investment Report 1993, pp. 84–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 133.
    See John H. Dunning, ‘The Global Economy, Domestic Governance, Strategies and Transnational Companies’, Transnational Corporations, 2 (1), December 1992, pp. 7–45; Horsman and Marshall, After the Nation-State, pp. 204–5; Ohmae, Borderless World, p. x, 195; The Economist, ‘Third World Survey’, p. 40.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© David Lockwood 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Lockwood
    • 1
  1. 1.Flinders University of South AustraliaAustralia

Personalised recommendations