There Is no doubt that the construction of global markets corresponds to the interests of global enterprises that are undermining the sovereignty of countries in terms of economic, political and social decisions; As well as modify the culture of each region But what happens at the other end of the range of productive possibilities? Millions of medium, small and microproducers find that the market in which their productive capacities were relevant has disappeared. Produced and marketed in and for local, regional, national markets that were destroyed, expropriated we might say.
What was productive and competitive yesterday is no longer today. In other words, what was competitive in a regional or national market Is not proving to be in the new globalized market. That Is why in this article we will mention the main effects of globalization on the Nation-State, culture and productive organization from the point of view of some authors.
It Is implying the massive destruction of the productive capacities found in the hands of the vast majority of producers and workers in the peripheral countries; Small, Medium and Micro enterprises. As Well as small traders, affected by the emergence of the large chains of hypermarkets that appear as a result of international investments or of internal groupings that are formed, precisely, to confront the previous ones.
Global capitalism requires a global market that eliminates domestic markets that cannot compete, or in other words, we witness the expansion of a global capital that destroys peripheral capital.
The loss of importance of the production of raw materials against the production of manufactures and services, the predominance of «symbolic» financial capital as the driving force of the system, the transnationalization of the economy and the decentralization of the Production to take advantage of the workforce of the periphery (transition from Fordism to Neo-Fordism), and a new «international Division of Labor» (Knox and Agnew 1989; Healey e Ilbery 1990; Dicken 1990.1992).
Capital does not flow through the world erratically. Always look for the best pastures and countries that want to «enjoy» their benefits must compete for it. Not Surprisingly, it is said that in the new scenario the competitive advantages must be created, and paradoxically some countries have made the impoverishment of the population a weapon of competence, so that low wages are one of such advantages or stratagems that have It was then called «Labor dumping.
Contrary to what is ordinarily thought, globalization processes are widening the gap between developed countries and the underdeveloped world. It Is Known, for example, that 80% of world trade occurs between the United States, Japan and the European Union (Dicken 1992), and that the markets of the periphery, regarded as the «Slum» of the world, are not interesting for large multinational corporations , given its low consumption capacity.
The processes of globalization that act as systemic forces on the periphery erode the sovereignty of the Nation-State and its ability to make autonomous decisions. They Generate the gradual loss of State control over national culture.
The belief that private property is the basis on which to build political power and the whole organization of society is detrimental to the action of the public embodied by the State. It Is In this perspective that the crisis of the Nation-State is framed. (Slim 1966). Also because globalization is accompanied by a concept of state modernity and a neoliberal movement based on private property (privatization of the State).
«The influence of any particular State within the global political order is strongly conditioned by the level of its wealth and by the connection between it and military power», it is possible to understand why the states of the periphery are the most affected. In them It is more evident that globalization is undermining its sovereign capacity to make autonomous decisions about its location within the world economy and on the daily social, political and cultural life of the localities. The fate of weak localities is being determined not by the Nation-State, but by decisions, activities and events that occur beyond their territorial jurisdiction. (Giddens, 1994).
Forming blocks in the globalization process that alter the geopolitical systems of global security, then the interests of the blocs are put before those of the poor countries. The New International «regulatory» institutions of the global market led by the most developed countries impose their legislation and sanctions systems. Decisions are made in the center, i.e., they are local, but their scope is global.
The decisions of key non-State actors such as transnational corporations and institutions tend not to be related to their place of origin. The states are competing for the localization of production and the multinationals have more and more power, so that the sovereignty of the States is made vulnerable to the wishes of the multinationals. (Smith, 1994).
The Nation’s detriment to New Social Policies: Many countries in the periphery have received and applied the message that their path to development is marked by the need to enter the global competition system. Hence, much of their energy has been devoted to dismantling the old models of development and of course, as these plans were based on the action of the «Welfare State», then the priority has been its restructuring and modernization with strategies Neo-liberals such as bureaucratization, privatization and decentralization. All This is not good for the peripheral countries that have a large proportion of their population under conditions of very low human development, whose social redemption is only possible through the interventionism of the state.
We have been in the past decade in the face of a sharp drop in the productivity levels of the national production apparatus, the remuneration of workers, the care that society provides to health, education and, in general, the levels of wellbeing «( Franc 1995:2).
As a result of the state’s fiscal and political crisis in the peripheral countries, external pressures (capital flow) increase their internal instability. (Becker, 1993).
The behaviour of localities is influenced by the global context, which makes it virtually impossible for the general regulations of the metasystem to predict its operation on all scales. (Dollfus, 1993).
The accelerated internationalization of economic processes; The use of new information technologies and new forms of production with not only technological transfer but also cultural, have made culture a product and a factor of production (Thrift 1995).
Tendency to the emergence of a transnational right that makes think of global tribunals and a common sense (De Sousa Santos, 1995). It Implies that the exercise of citizenship, the duties and rights of the people, have a scenario beyond the national. (Smith, 1994). This can be seen in the manifestations of support or disagreement on the part of the population in some countries where meetings of international or global entities such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or the World Organization of the Trade (WTO).
Loss of Cultural Identity: The notion of «global culture» is generally associated with the dissemination of the values and lifestyle of the developed countries of the West. The possibility of the countries of the periphery of globalising their culture is not so obvious; Information highways can be double-tracked, but traffic is more intense in one direction. In Addition The global culture is a commodity and the periphery, more than producer is consuming.
Real Fact that corroborates the above:
The Following is an event that exemplifies a large part of what was said earlier:
A country in the periphery that is interested in competing with Indonesia and creating favorable conditions for the NIKE multinational to install one of its plants, has to set wages below US $2,30 a day, And recently the Indonesian government refused To authorize wage hikes up to US $2.50 a day, alleging that such a measure did not allow them to compete with India and China for the benefit of producing in their territory a pair of tennis shoes at a cost of US $7,50, which NIKE sells in the United States at prices above US $7 0. In Indonesia, all NIKE workers receive something like US $12.500.000 a year, but in the United States, for the only commitment to wear such shoes, an athlete earns $20 million per year.