Politics

民族国家以外的民主

Nov 14, 2017 Kemal Derviş

华盛顿——按照哈佛大学经济学家丹尼·罗德里克的说法，不可能同时拥有充分的国家主权、民主和全球化。哈维尔·索拉纳最近探讨过的“世界经济的三难政治困境”的概念尽管有效，但却仍然是不完整的。

罗德里克在新书中所阐述的观点是过度全球化侵蚀民族民主国家的主权，导致它们受到不符合国内绝大多数人意愿的经济和金融势力的影响越来越大。按照这一逻辑，威权国家可能在全球化背景下能更好的发挥作用，因为它们较少受到选举关切的牵制。

在全球化程度较低的情况下，民族国家内部的民主决策或许可以较少受到外力——特别是金融市场的影响，也就是说民主决策所涉及的范围相对较大。在没有民族国家的前提下实现全球化和民主也有可能，尽管罗德里克对民主制度能否在全球范围内发挥作用持怀疑态度。

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Subscribe now to gain greater access to Project Syndicate – including every commentary and our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – starting at less than $5 per month.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 8 Comments on this article

Graham Hodgson Nov 20, 2017

The earlier comments don't reflect the message that I take from this article. The issue is whether democracy can cope with both national sovereignty and globalisation and the argument presented is that it can, so long as it is local democracy. But in order for this to be effective, local democracy has to be married to local sovereignty. This means, in my view, that taxation should reflect the hierarchy of democracy. Municipal or state/regional citizens and enterprises should be taxed by municipal or state/regional authorities to finance local employment, welfare, health and infrastructure issues, and municipal or state/regional tax-raising authorities should be taxed nationally to finance international issues of trade and defence and the coordination of provisions for welfare, health and infrastructure issues that fall outside the administrative boundaries of local democracy.
- Barry Rosenfeld Nov 20, 2017
  
  The article is a bit self-contradictory. Rodrik clearly is speaking about the NATION-STATE, and ceding powers to lower levels of government erodes the power of that entity. Localization had been bandied about for decades and the issue is that the preservation of democracy at that level of political organization greatly erodes the power of the people to protect themselves against globalized financial institutions and multi-national corporations.
  
  The recent example of Amazon shopping for better tax deals among competing localities hoping for investment is a good example. These localities have about as much bargaining power as a single worker does in respect to these huge enterprises. The mention of authoritarian governments is also a bit peculiar as this eliminates democracy to maintain globalization and the nation-state.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Anoop Tiwari Nov 14, 2017

Decentralization of power and democracy to the local level is all but fine. Questions such as who will negotiate with global economic forces ? The national or local government? What is the guarantee that local governments with limited agency within the national government will be able to have a better deal? Or if globalization led by immense power of capital at all will give way to democratic accountability, especially if the demand is increasingly fragmented as you suggest. It seems as if globalization, if it has to cross the next stage, will need to be regulated by robust international regulatory mechanism which ultimately will have to be substantively representative of communities, localities and cities. This is mammoth task for us as species with all the biases and goodness. Globalization ultimately does not respect a lot of diversity and your framework is anything but a favorable ground as far as globalization as a process is concerned. But indeed localization of power centeres will help in establishing a networked structure through which local elites can also reap next stage of benefits that are to from the bedrock of next stages globalization.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
stephan Edwards Nov 14, 2017

A city is going do anything but what Boeing or Lockheed Martin or Apple tell them too. It would be when say jump ask how high or we take your tax base away. Increase democracy not likely. As for helping people and finding ways to help those left behind from the start. I don't know who you think is dumb anyone cares about those left behind. Not a single Corporation nor politician give a .....dam- for those left behind. Should you disbelieve me I'd suggest you look at the number of Homeless in Seattle home of Amazon and Microsoft or perhaps San Jose and Silicon Valley where some people commute 8 hours a day or live in their cars. Please do not peddle fantasy that government or corporations are to anything whatsoever to help the losers. If the last 40 years have proved anything absolutely beyond any doubt whatsoever is that the winners be they Corporate, Political or Academic DON"T GIVE A SH-T for the losers they should just shut up and be grateful whatever the winners condescend to give them.
- Steve Hurst Nov 14, 2017
  
  Yeah, look at the city slobbering that is going on for the Amazon centre
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Nov 14, 2017

People don't tend to fuss on about this stuff if they have a decent job. Empowering cities is a smoke screen and does not address the central issue which is decent jobs.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/MaA2vjazh

民族国家以外的民主

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Handpicked to read next

The Truth About Sovereignty

Log in/Register

民族国家以外的民主

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Handpicked to read next

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification