"There is Still Room to Improve and Increase Globalization"

Interview - Pierre Vercauteren, Secretary general of REGIMEN, Catholic University of Mons, Belgium, October 2007

We constantly repeat that we live in a globalized world, in a world economy in which national states are virtually dissolved, there are no borders per se which leads to conclusion that sovereignty has somewhat lost its meaning. Is that true, and if so, is it really as bad as it sounds to the general population?

First we need to know is that in my opinion we are not yet in a globalized world but still in a process of globalization. It is completely different, meaning that there is still room to improve and increase globalization. But at the same time we see reactions against globalization with phenomenon of fragmentation. We basically seek both at the same time. If you consider globalization not only as an economic - but my theory is that we have also globalization in the sphere of security and in the sphere of meaning which is, for instance: culture, religion, ideologies etc. But in each globalization you need to consider that some part won't be globalized. For instance if you take an economy it makes sense to talk about global market of oil, but it does not make sense to talk about global market of fresh lettuce, tomatoes or fresh eggs, because they still need to be produced locally. That means that globalization indeed isn't achieved process and this needs to open the question of what will be the next step. Shall we have the globalization still growing in the next years and then back to fragmentation or something else. What we need to see is that things are interacting, globalization from one time, and fragmentation from the other time. I didn't have enough time during my presentation to say that we have three kinds of relationships between fragmentation and globalization. First, you can have a fragmentation which is a light for globalization, for instance when you see European Union. EU is promoting free movement of capital and goods, which is the same principle of WTO. Furthermore, you can have the fragmentation vital to globalization, for instance in the field of identities. There are some parts of the world that don't want to be globalized. You can also have the third category which is a rival and a friend, both at the same time. For instance, the EU is promoting the principle of WTO, but at the same time when there is some criticism inside EU for, let's say agriculture - it is a rival to globalization. No one knows so far what will be the final result of these interactions. Second part of the question was about the state. Indeed, my opinion is that the state is nowadays facing a transformation and legitimacy crysis. When you see from my three spheres theory, state has three main functions – social cohesion of its citizens in a teritory, economic and macroeconomic equilibrium and security. In all these spheres, the state is challenged by issues that are getting out of control of the state. Meaning that the state is in a need to transform itself or to create new ways to deal with that. Global governance – maybe, regional integrations – maybe. There lies the basic problem of state sovereignty. I do not believe that there is such thing as an absolute state sovereignty. It can not exist. The question is that you have some states that are more powerful and more sovereign than others, in todays world in global challenges such as movement of capital, enviroment, etc. you need bigger units than states. So the bigger you are, the more powerful you are, and more able you are to deal and face with these problems. So either you are big state such as USA or India or you need to integrate into regional bodies. The most powerful states are not truly sovereign, you see, so the
y are facing more and more pressure from the interational systems which they can't control.

I've understood that one of your areas of interest is also the transformation of the state. Can you tell me, in terms of globalization of course, where does the transformation of the state end and is it actually possible to predict what kind of effect it would have on the actors? What is going on particularly with social cohesion in states which are already in that transformation process?

That is a major point. No one can tell where and how far the state will transform itself. Question is complex because it is hard to find an universal answer for all the states. That means that each state needs to reinvent itself according to its specific nature and specific social cohesion. In the morning we've heard something about nation states. My feeling is that there is no more such thing as a nation-state in todays world. Either you see nation as a category of population with same religion, language etc. but in this sense nation states no more exist because you will find minorities here and there in every state. As the growing phenomenon of migration of people through communications etc. there is no more thing such as unique nation in unique state. So we need to consider the social cohesion of all the people living in the same state in a different way. I'm partly conserned about the future of Belgium. We have different nations and we're facing a new challenge of a new way to live together. In this sense the social cohesion defines itself as a way people are living together. So if you consider this question indeed, in a globalized world maybe we could try and see the question of identity as a kind of multi level identity. Meaning that far identities exclusive to one another - is it possible, for instance to feel Croatian on one hand and to feel European on the other hand when you are facing a nation or an American meaning that you are both. It is interesting to see that from the 19th century Europe we define identity and nations as exclusive to one another, either you are on this one on the other one. Now maybe, in the phenomenon of globalization in the feel of meaning and global culture, maybe we can try and see thing differently. Meaning that I can be an identity from Dubrovnik, and at the same time have identity of Croatia and identity of feeling European. The question is how can I manage to build this multi level identity. If a state is no more able to represent a common identity, whatever the cause, that means that the state is in crysis.

What about the new forms of governance? You've said that every state nowadays is trying to get along with other states while forming a much larger and yet more powerful and functional organism. What about governance there and are we even able to define those new forms of governance today?

I have a problem with concept of governance. Why? Because in todays world one of the aspects of crysis of the state is the crysis of the meaning. After the end of cold war we are facing a world without meaning, without utopia. There has definitely been a crysis of ideologies. Even inside states, political parties are facing problem of defining a new coherent project for the future of mankind. Which means that without being able to find a new utopia how can you then find an answer to the crysis of legitimacy for the states? Because, one of the main reasons of legitimacy crysis is not only a crysis of functioning but the crysis of "raison d'être". So when you can not find an answer for the meaning then you turn and debate and avoid the basic question by turning to instead of „raison d'être” to the know-how. That’s where the governance question arrives. Governance is not "raison d'être", governance is a proces, it is a way of dealing with things. So if you can not manage the "raison d'être" question then you go to the question of process. The question I use to say – If we cannot say where we want to go, let’s try to answer how we are going to. That is the problem with the governance, we are trying to prove the way of dealing with things without knowing how and why.

During your presentation, I found an interesting remark – the one where you said that the state can be either a victim or a participant in the process of globalization. I was wondering can it be both at the same time because you separated those two aspects in your presentation.

The state is indeed a victim and a participant in the process. Globalization began before the states, and the states took part in that process. But more the states wanted to take part in that process that more they actually lost control over it. It is a paradox, that it is a victim and a participant at the same time.

Interview by Denis Jelec

» add comment

comment


e-mail

potvrdni kod