Transnational State: Difference between revisions

From P2P Foundation
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with " =Discussion= ==Towards a Transnationalisation of the state, rather than a transnational state== Kanishka Jayasuriya: "I find the general approach of the transnational state ...")
 
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:


=Discussion=
=Discussion=
Line 31: Line 30:
such as globality or the transnational state."
such as globality or the transnational state."
(http://www.criticalglobalisation.com/Issue3/127_138_INTERVIEW_JAYASURIYA_JCGS3.pdf)
(http://www.criticalglobalisation.com/Issue3/127_138_INTERVIEW_JAYASURIYA_JCGS3.pdf)
=Bibliography=
Robinson, W. I. 2001a. Social Theory and Globalization: The Rise of a Transnational
State. Theory and Society , 30(2): pp. 157-200.
---. 2001b. Theory of the Global State: Globality as an Unfinished Revolution. By Martin
Shaw. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2000. American Political
Science Association, 95 (4): pp 1045-1047
---. 2004. A Theory of Global Capitalism: Production, Class, and State in a Transnational
World. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Shaw, M. 2000. Theory of the Global State: Globality as an Unfinished Revolution.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.




[[Category:Governance]]
[[Category:Governance]]

Revision as of 08:50, 19 July 2011

Discussion

Towards a Transnationalisation of the state, rather than a transnational state

Kanishka Jayasuriya:

"I find the general approach of the transnational state or globality useful in examining some key aspects of the global political economy. It moves us beyond unhelpful debates about the return of the state and/or misguided attempts to perceive global conflict in terms of a return to national developmentalism. In sum, I think it usefully takes us beyond the methodological nationalism that troubles much of the mainstream and critical Political Economy literatures.

Having said this, my own approach differs from these perspectives in that I see the crucial issue as the transformation of the state rather than the emergence of a new transnational state. At the same time, we need to see the development of these transnational forms of governance as an ongoing process that involves accommodation and contestation between various ‘national’ and transnational regimes within the state. I would emphasize the strategic choices and conflicts between key actors in rescaling projects. It is these kinds of conflicts that drive state transformation, and I think this should be at the centre of a research agenda on transnational regulation.

In addition, I think we should place more emphasis on the nature and dynamics of the emerging transnational administrative/regulatory law, even if this is often of the soft law variety. As I indicate in my responses above, it is the complex and fragmented nature of this global administrative law that defines the new transnational governance. This transnational law and governance is likely to be very different from what is usually associated with the national state. This is something that is neglected by notions such as globality or the transnational state." (http://www.criticalglobalisation.com/Issue3/127_138_INTERVIEW_JAYASURIYA_JCGS3.pdf)


Bibliography

Robinson, W. I. 2001a. Social Theory and Globalization: The Rise of a Transnational State. Theory and Society , 30(2): pp. 157-200.

---. 2001b. Theory of the Global State: Globality as an Unfinished Revolution. By Martin Shaw. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2000. American Political Science Association, 95 (4): pp 1045-1047

---. 2004. A Theory of Global Capitalism: Production, Class, and State in a Transnational World. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Shaw, M. 2000. Theory of the Global State: Globality as an Unfinished Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.