Transnational Class

Discussion

Kanishka Jayasuriya:

"It seems to me that the basic point here is that there is no monolith transnational capitalist class; rather, we have different fractions within it. What is clear is that the idea of ‘national capital’, or indeed, national developmentalism, is simply not viable in the current circumstances. It is interesting, though, that these nationalist ideas have wide currency within much of the developing world and I think this is a retrograde step in political terms.

It is clear that in East Asia statist forms of capital are becoming much more important. The really imperative question here lies in the way these ‘statist’ forms of capital are transforming the state in critical ways. In some respects it is commodifying the state, which has become a player on international financial markets. See for example the role of the Chinese state as a bondholder in the US. But to give a short answer to your question: We need to be much more cognizant of the differences within forms of transnationalised capital and the way this plays out in political and policy-making institutions." (http://www.criticalglobalisation.com/Issue3/127_138_INTERVIEW_JAYASURIYA_JCGS3.pdf)

Bibliography

Robinson, W. I. & Harris, J. 2000. Toward a Global Ruling Class? Globalization and the Transnational Capitalist Class. Science & Society , 64(1): pp. 11–54.

Sklair, L. 2001. The Transnational Capitalist Class . Oxford: Blackwell.