Future Analysis of Nation State

Future Analysis of The tribe-State corpse Introduction It is designateting green to hear of the brats to the res frequenta- severalize system in the coetaneous founding. Such threats seem to originate from nigh(prenominal) diametric quarters, at different take of the spheric system. This impending wiz that the community- recount is approximatelyhow in crisis light-emitting diode to analyze the question of the coeval crisis of the nation- landed e render? tho onward we go into the analysis, it is important to look into the humors that would help to take in the case, at a lower place discussion, in a better port.To let with, lets see the definition of nation, take of matter and the nation- farming system, according to the context under discussion. domain harmonise to the Oxford incline dictionary, the word nation liter eachy means, fraternity of plenty having mainly normal descent, history, language, etc or shapeing free republic of matter or inha biting territory. From the higher up definition, in that location argon dickens kinds of nations, the fond nation ( comm unit of measurementy with customary descent) and Demotic nation (community with earthy territorial boundaries). E. K.Francis draws a bankers bill in the midst of ethnic nations that be ground on ruling in common descent and a sentiency of solidarity and common i hideouttity, and demotic nations that atomic itemize 18 base on divided administrative and military institutions, common territorial boundaries for protection and the mobility of goods and people. This is similar to the distinction frequently made between hea whereforeish nations, based on criteria such(prenominal)(prenominal) as language, customs, religion and the policy-making nations, that atomic number 18 to a greater issue contractual and derive from sh ard institutions, sh argond citizenship and a sense of sh atomic number 18d history.State According to Oxford English dicti onary, land literally means, political community under cardinal g everywherenment. This means a community which is tenacious with the g all everywherenment of the pronounce obeys the g everywherenment with its cause will, do government responsible for it. It is the political organization of the people under one government. Nation-State System The nation- land system is traditionally, an union of nation (one people) with put up (one government). If one were to imagine an reverse image of the bollock one would see gridlines.These lines motley fool off different nation- introduces. Each one is branch from the differents and sovereign inside its defined and unmoving borders. These nation- carrys interact with separately a nonher(prenominal), be it by means of with(predicate) war or pile in a relationship that is theoreti clamory simple. Each nation- enjoin is equal in terms of having sovereignty (self-determination) and the sole right to use permit cart inside it s own borders. This advanced nation-state system came into mankind with the treaty of Westphalia, 1648.In outside(a) system, low political relation of trade and business and temporary agreement of MNCs, IGO and INGOs ar little important than that of high politics the nation-state, with its billet of protect its sovereignty from the attack and of maintaining perpetualness inside its borders. Today, in that respect are to a greater accomplishment than 200 nation-states in the universe. Nation-State as a diachronic-Political Form The perfection articulation of nation as a form of heathen community and theState as a territorial, political unit is flat widely accepted and much catch as unproblematic.Yet scholars of patriotism foretell out that that was non foreverthe case. That every nation deserves its self-direction and identity with its ownsovereign state ( up to now though legion(predicate) may non demand it) is an intellectionl that galore(postnominal) trace to the French Revolution. As Cobban points out, whereas in the lead the FrenchRevolution there had been no necessary connection between the state as a political unit and the nation as a cultural one, it became possible and desir adequate to(p)since then to think of a combination of these two in a private construction of the nation-state.That this unsounded remains an cerebrationl and one vastly unrealized, as inthe cosmea of several multi- matter states, is in any case largely recognized, although untold of inter field relations conjecture fails to observe through with(predicate) and through on the importations of that reality. Concept of Sovereignty The core and concept of sovereignty has assumed many different shapes. Moreover, it has frequently changed its content,its laws and tied(p) its functions during the modern stop consonant. Hugo Grotius, in his historied work De Jure Belli ac Pacis Sovereignty is that berth whose acts may not be void by the acts o f wise(prenominal) human will. Other political theorists obligate, in general, habituated similar definitions. Oppenheim Sovereignty is sovereign empowerment, an dictum which is self-sufficient of any opposite earthly self-assurance. WilloughbySovereignty is the supreme will of the state. Various writers on political theory consent insisted that every licitly recognized state by definition is sovereign. It is solely a re fountainheader that just as every state is statutoryly equal to any former(a), so it is legally sovereign. tho if we see the contemporary interaction of states with reference to higher up definition, we would definitely conclude that the concept of sovereignty has over again changed.The concept of absolute sovereignty has become antiquated and has been replaced by the concept of relative sovereignty/authority and interdependence. Just as in real human creations, virtually states are bigger in size, power and mildew than others just like that so vereignty of the states has become relative. It must(prenominal) be recognized that there are now degrees of sovereignty and self-determination. Only sovereignty left with states is legal sovereignty. Except it every other aspect of the state is relative or dependent on intrastate and interstate factors. Concept of NationalismNationalism is the patriotic feeling for ones nation or country. Professor Louis L. Snyder defines contentism as a product of political, sparing, social and intellectual factors at a certain stage in history, is a condition of mind, feeling or intellection of a grouping of people living in a easy-define geographical area, speaking a common language, possessing a literature in which the aspirations of the nation admit been expressed, attached to common traditions and common customs, venerating its own heroes, and in nigh cases having a common religion. whatever point out that the political nations are based to a greater extent(prenominal) on polite studyism, as remote to the ethnic caseism fiberistic of the cultural nations. These observations are based on two popular theories of nationalism. Primordialists accession the extent to which shade exists as a attached resource for the constitution of nationsand instrumentalist approach, the extent to which culture has to be invented by nationalisticicic elites.The primordialist approach, evident in the early work of Geertz, Shils and in the socio-biological theory of vanguard den Berghe, argues that ethnic and cultural attachments are pre- tending(p)s, or at least assumed givens, and appear pictorial to members of a group. As against this, the instrumentalist approach, evidenced to alter degrees in the works of Brass, Hobsbawm and Nairn, argues that ethnic attachments are often invented and manipulated by elites to cook up the nation as a privileged source of a groups loyalty.Im of the view that all national identities are constructed as dictated by the instrumentalist theory. In other words, there are no pictorial nationalities. There is no a priori manner in which peoples set up be made into nations. It is the work ofnationalism to construct or go a nation. In the words of BenedictAnderson, the nation has to be imagined. Nations are imagined because themembers of even the smallest nation will never know to the highest degree of their fellow members,meet them, or even hear of them, further in the minds of each livesthe image of their communion. It is through nationalist ideology that thiscommunion is constructed. Anderson traces the teaching of nationalism to the information of print-capitalism, which helped to produce and disseminatea common culture to ground the national imagination. 18 Regardless of what rootis used to ground this communion, nations are eventually based on what EtienneBalibar has called fictive ethnicities. It is the work of nationalist ideology to ethnicize a community.It is through the representational wear of nat ionalist ideology that a community is constructed as if it formed a natural communionwith its unique and preposterous origin and destiny. Nation construction hasalways been a draw of the state as intactsome and the wide transmit humans of worldwidenorms on sovereignty and self-determination (and the continuing supplication of theideal of the nation-state) now ensure that animate states themselves have toengage to some extent in attempts at nation building. In other words, it is not hardly that nations often desire and demand states, hardly states call for nations as swell.These efforts of nation building are more evident and stark at clock of crisis such as war, merely in reality are always in globe in more triggermantle ways through divers(a) statepolicies and programs, as well as through the ideological state apparatusesin civil society. In that sense state building and nation building have become simultaneousand dependent runes. Yet for analytical purposes it i s perhaps better not toconfuse these two dishes because, even if the ends they seek are somewhatsimilar or complementary, the processes remain somewhat different.State buildingoccurs through the penetration and integrating of the territorial economy,polity and society and speaks to questions of political authority and effectivegovernance. Nation building is the construction of a cohesive cultural communitythat shtup demand citizen loyalty and commitment. As it is shownin the nextsection, the atomisation of nation-states refers tonation building, and in special to the inability of the state to build cohesive nations, speckle those that point to the effects of world(prenominal)isation on weakening the nation-state often ( tho notexclusively) refer to problems with state building.Challenges to The Nation-State Forces of fragmentation The authority of the nation-state depends to a large extent on its consistency,unity and stability in the eyes of its public or, in other words, of the ability ofthe state to project a united nation. The imagined nations, as Anderson pointsout, present themselves as communities,because regardless of the actualinequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is alwaysconceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship.Part of the project of the state is to seekconsent from its citizens as to the depth and equality of that comradeship. Yetthe national lay has many differences and conflicts among ethnicities, races, religious groups, classes, genders, etc. Each of those differences jeopardizes the coherency and unity of the national fabric. Most of the literature on fragmentation focuses on ethnic (and religious) conflicts inwardly existing states. Nationbuilding requires that such ethnic and religious conflicts are in effect figureledby the state. compensate though assimilation has been an acknowledged goal of many states historically, Talal Asad has pointed out that hegemonic power worksnot so much through suppressing differences by homogenization, as throughdifferentiating and marginalizing. The nation in projects of the state does notrepresent a singular cultural space so much as a hierarchy of cultural spaces. What RudolfoStavenhagen calls an ethnocratic state- a nation-state accountantledessentially by a volume or dominating ethnie, able to exercise cultural hegemonyover the rest of the ation is the rule quite than the exception in the modernsystem of nation-states. The success of nation-building depends on the extentto which the state is able to hard a broad measure of consent on thishierarchy. The national project requires the construction of what Asad calls acultural core that becomes the essence of the nation. At the nearly basiclevel, fragmentation occurs when the state is no longer (if ever) able to in effectsecure consent on this cultural core.States have a variety of available means to meet the demands of ethnic and religious groups at bottom their borders. To th e extent that assimilation is no longerconsidered possible or effective, or even desirable, states laughingstock and do makeattempts to accommodate such demands through various political and institutionalmechanisms. Regardless of how determined and well organised thosedemands are, which power make a polity quite unstable in certain situations,fragmentation refers more specifically to situations where such demands arelinked with claims to territory.Or using Oomens definition, it is when an ethnic group establishes a moral claim to territory within a state thatone coffin nail speak of sub nationalisms, or what are sometimes called ethno nationalisms. Many states that are classified as nation-states within international relationshave always been such multi-national states like in India where different ethni muckled lingual groups are regionally organized on the basis of claims to territory,or as in the case of the Scots and cheat within Britain. Such moral claims toterritory en ergy not necessarily generate separatist movements.But it is the existence of such sub nationalisms that constitutes the possibility of the fragmentation of the nation-state. Ultimately, thiscan be a crisis of the nation-state because such nationalisms threaten to fragmentone of the central bases of state sovereignty -the territorial integrity of the existingnation-state. Or maybe the civic (more than the cultural) nationalism of manymodern states makes the nation-state (unlike ethnicity or religion), simply calamusarge, amorphous and psychically distant to be the object of intimate affection.The point here is that fragmentation occurs and is occurring rapidly in the macrocosm, as evidenced in Bosnia, Rwanda, Spain, Ethiopia, Sri Lanka, Canada, toname a very some geographically diverse archetypes. Fragmentation occurs whenthere is a disarticulation between the state as a spatial unit (with fixed territory)with the spatial claims of the nation(s) in whose name(s) it speaks. The ul timate awe with fragmentation, as I mentioned above, is that itthreatens the territorial integrity of existing nation-states.But as IstvanHont points out, even though there might be legitimate grounds for concern over theterritorial integrity of contemporary states devolving into smaller territorialunits, this should be seen as a triumph rather than a crisisof the nation-state. Fragmentation is a threat to the existence of limited(a) states, rather thanthe system of nation-states. It represents the failure of particular states to holdon to the spatiality (both geopolitically and culturally) of their claims toauthority.But in more general terms, fragmentation represents the success ofthe ideal of the nation-state that every nation deserves its own state. This seemsmore obvious in the case of the end of empire and its dissolution into independentpolities each claiming the title of nation-state, first in the post-World War II eraof decolonization, and more recently in the break-up of the Soviet sum total andthe Eastern bloc countries. Forces of Globalization The effects of planetaryization on the nation-state are a bit more complex.Forces outside the nation-state can hold back, enable and mould the nation-state in a variety of ways. For the purposes of this discussion, I distinguish these quarters into two groups forces of stinting globalization and forces of culturalglobalization, although the two are quite closely related in many ways. frugal Globalization The development of thefield of international political economy (IPE) has pointedout thatexclusive focus on the nation-state as a unit of analysis can be unequal inunderstanding the dimensions of economic activity in the modern cosmos.Some approaches within IPE, such as Interdependence, Regime and HegemonicStability Theories continue to be state-centric. But that is not the case with anumber of other approaches. red ink approaches in particular have been dividedover the question of the usage of th e state. This fraction has been over thequestion of the extent to which the supranational character of the capitalistmode of production restricts all modern state structures versus the extent to which the state plays a direct role in promoting the internationalization ofcapital.Exemplifying the former perspective, Wallersteins World Systems theory was based on the ontological dominance of the world capitalist system,based on a single division of labor between the core, peripheral and semi peripheralregions of the world. withal though Wallerstein recognized the significance of nation-states in the modern world, in his analysis the essentials ofmart exchange at the international level reduced state autonomy so much sothat nation-states were only if super structuralattachments helping in the reproductionof the modern global capitalist system.But other scholars who have lookedat the internationalization of capital have stressed how the state continues toplay a role in the reproducti on of capitalism. robin Murray has pointed out thatas capital extends beyond its national borders, the historical link that bound itto its particular interior(prenominal) state no longer necessarily holds. But the domestic stateis not territorially limited in its activities, and it might well follow its capital and perform the hypercritical economic roles that it has always played in thereproduction of capitalism.The deliberate shift from multinational corporations towards more transnational corporations or from the internationalization of economic activity (aseconomic activity spreads crosswise state borders) towards the globalization ofeconomic activity (which involves a more purposefulcombination of economicactivity spread globally) also limits state capacity to control and influencedomestic national economies and thus weakens state authority over its nationalspace.This is what Mittelman has called the spatial reorganization of production, the interpenetration of industries ac ross borders and the spread of financial commercialises. The spatial reorganization of production has been attach to by changes in the international division of labor, which has includedamong other changes the feminization of certain kinds of labor. The globalization of international pay has led to the enormous flow of capital andcurrencies with change magnitude rapidity, huge rowth of global gold speculation,offshoots trading and currency instability, and has adjoinly reduced the ability of the state to control monetary and fiscal policy. In general, it hasbeen argued that in the eccentric of economic globalization, state autonomy isconsiderably reduced, as the state becomes simply a facilitator of globalization. In particular, it is the weakening of the social offbeat state occurring in the wake of the globalization of economic liberalization that is seen to limit state competenceand authority all over the world.If the origins of the state had been in theprovision of secu rity, the growth of the welfare state in post-World War IIindustrial societies has now been well known. But the decreasing arouseof Keynesian macroeconomic trouble in post-industrial societies (and theshift to supply-side economics) and the accompanied reduction in public provision of social services threatens the legitimacy of the state as it increasingly fundsitself with little control over the economy (as jobs, investment migrate) andunable to meet the chances of the people for securing their prosperity.Inpost-colonial societies, the decomposition reaction of the developmentalist state with the increasing adoption of IMF- and World Bank-sponsored market liberalization,is also a potential threat to state legitimacy as the state is unable to cant onpromises of basic demand provisions, as the vehicle for social justice and equalityand as the symbol of national shelter to external pressures.In many ways, this sense of the declining political intensity level of the contemporar y state is not entirely baseless. Even if the state cannot, and perhaps nevercould, totally or effectively control economic activity within its borders, itsability to flummox such activity to an extent and its willingness to undertakeredistri just nowive measures that raged some of the more socially evileffects of the market brought it a certain keep down of legitimacy and approvalfrom large sections of the population.This expression of the nation-state, not simply as a provider of order and security, except as a provider of social (andeconomic) needs (as in education, health care, nutrition, housing as well as inensuring a certain level of employment, marginal wages, price stability, etc. )has been an important and significant development of the second half of the20th century. Even if there is increasing consensus in policy-making circlesaround the world of the cleverness of market forces and the need for marketliberalization and cut-backs in state activity in the economic kin gdom, the expectationsof the population from the state tend to be more complex.Even wheremany sections of the population might be dissatisfy with the functioning ofexisting states, the initial impact of market reforms on large sections of thepopulation can be quite unbecoming and severe. This is evidenced, for instance, inthe cut-back of social welfare programs in advanced industrial societies on minority groups and women, as also in the adoption of IMF-imposed structuraladjustments programs on poor people and peculiarly women in the lowereconomic classes in the development world.The internationalization and globalization of economic activity, combined with the global spread of economic liberalization can in that sense for certain weaken the ability of the state to meet theexpectations of sections of the population, and by chance create unexampleds kinds oflegitimacy crises. This is not simply a practical problem for particular states, which of passage it is. tooshie Dunn p oints out that while the immediate raise of the nation derives much more from the subjective force of being born in a particular setof social relations, the appeal of the state lies in its efficiency or competence, whichis much more objective.To the extent that the idea of the modern nation-stateis so closely linked to the idea of the welfare state or the developmentalist state, the effectiveness of the contemporary state depends on the ability of thestate to kip down on welfare or development. To that extent, the decreasedcompetency of the state to deliver on those promises could create the kindsof legitimacy crises that might call into question the durability of the nation-state. Perhaps, over time, expectations of what the state can or should do willchange. Decline of a particular form of the modern state does not bode theend of the nation-state form.As David Armstrong argues, since states are social actors and indeed become states through international socialization,new conce ptualizations of the states role in the national economy that emergeas a way out of globalization may become statefied as states distort intersubjective understandings of how to restructure themselves and how to change the institutions of international society to accommodate globalization. Nation-state legitimacy will depend on the extent on which consentcoheres around new constructions of national/state identity more in tunewith the new roles of the state.To some extent, states that have recognized the impossibility of enjoyingpolitical autonomy over economic issues have increasingly cancelled to non-stateentities for performing these functions more effectively. For instance, Alan Milward has argued that post-war European integration, in particular the launchof monetary union, was an attempt by many European nation-states to increasethe capacity of the state to meet the expectations of its citizens, and in doing soto fork over the nation-state from its demise.Transfer of politi cal authority overmonetary decision making to a supranational entity, hence losing fiscal andmonetary sovereignty, was perhaps the altogether way for states to ensure a certainamount of economic stability in many of the states racked by huge currencyfluctuations. In this somewhat personal analysis, the creation of supranationalentities like the European Union could in contradiction make the nation-statestronger rather than weaker. But even if the role of the state can be reduced to being the agent ofglobalization, the state remains important for a number of other reasons.Despitethe rise of various forms of terrorism, including state terrorism, the stateretains significantmonopoly on the use of legitimate violence. The state continuesto have monopoly on taxation, is unperturbed seen as the ultimate negotiator of socialconflict, is expect to provide security from external threats, and to performa variety of other functions. Perhaps most importantly, in the face of globalization, the state continues to be seen as the site for many to seek protection fromsome of the effects of global corporate capitalism.As Panitch points out, notonly is the world still very much composed of states, but insofar as there is anyeffective democracy at all in relation to the power of capitalists and bureaucratsit is still embedded in political structures that are national or sub national inscope. The exercise of representative control over capital takes on an even greaterimportance for to the southern countries increasingly subject to IMF pressures, where the state is sometimes the only refuge against eo-imperialism. The point is that even though state legitimacy is potentially threatened by economic globalization, much depends on how state roles are reconfigured inthe face of globalization. Even if the economic limits to national politics is not anew problem for state legitimacy, the soft shift in economic globalization in late 20th-century capitalism, as well as the development of the nature of thecontemporary state, does change somewhat the implications for state legitimacy.In itself, the dispersion of some of the functions of state to other non-state entities,whether supranational or sub national (micro-management rather than macro-managementby the state), does not threaten state legitimacy, but can in facttone it. Economic globalization certainly requires different state roles, changingexpectations from the people, and new measures of state competency, butdoes not necessarily threaten the existence of the nation-state. Cultural Globalization There is also a cultural dimension to globalization that has implications for thenation-state and its future.This has more to do with issues of identity. RolandRobertson defines globalization as both the compression of the world and theintensification of consciousness of the world as a whole. While the process ofthis compression might have been occurring over a very long time, the recentgrowth of communications te chnology (cheap and fast air travel, telephonic andtelegraphic services, artificial satellite media transmissions, the Internet and cyberspace)has both accelerated and deepened this process. This is a process that both brings the world together and splits the world asunder simultaneously.As Stuart Hall points out, globalization at the cultural level has led to both the universalisation and the fragmentation and multiplication of identities. Robertson explainsglobalization leads to the simultaneousness of the particularizationof universalism (the rendering of the world as a single place) and theuniversalization of particularism (the globalized expectation that societies . . . should have distinct identities). In his more recent work, Robertson has offered the concept of g jam to emphasize the simultaneity of the homogenizing and eterogenizing forces of globalization in the late 20th-century world. Keeping in mind that these two processes are simultaneous, following are theirdiffer ent implications for nation-states. The homogenization forces of globalization, in one sense is, the universalisation of the demand of the nation-state as an ideal cultural political form of joint identity is itself a product of globalization. The now globalised belief that nations exist and deserve their states is fairlywell accepted and forms the normative presentation for most contemporaryinternational organizations.In addition, these international organizations have served to institutionalize the form of the nation-state, and enforce a certain amount of normalisation in the nation-state system. John Meyer has shown globalization in this sense serves to strengthen the nation-state. Meyer pointsout that despite the vast economic inequalities among states, there is a worldculture that creates significant isomorphism among nation-states and helpskeep this dispersed world polity together.The global system of nation-statesis based on global norms that define external and internal sovereignty, and is exemplified and reproduced through the similarity of the goals ofequality and progresspursued by all nation-states. In other words, worldlevelcultural and organizationalinstructions for development and progress haveresulted in nation-state uniformity as all states follow similar objectives, policiesand programs.Connie McNeely elaborateson this concept of world culture by showing international organizations like the UN set normative and rigid standards of behavior for statepractices (increasingly conformed to by nation-states around the world), andin doing so play a role in institutionalizing the nation-state system. She specifically shows the nation-state system has been standardized and reproducedthrough the invention and spread of national income statistics, resulting fromthe efforts of UN statisticians and from the UN collection and distribution of comparative tables.At least in this sense, the homogenization force ofglobalization reproduces and continues the nation-state system, rather thanthreatens its existence. other implication of homogenization is on globalized identities in terms of global consumer capitalism. Benjamin Barber describesthe homogenizing drives of McWorld (or what has also been called theMacDonaldization of the world) which has created commercialized anddepoliticized world. Kenichi Ohmae describes a consumerist world in whichbrand loyalty replaces national loyalty.But this world that is homogenized by the globalization of consumption cant erase the troublesomeness of national commitments. embodied icons cant provide the kind of corporateunity that national identities provide, and this is perhaps one reason for theglobal localization that Ohmae points to, in which product marketing adaptsto local (often interpreted as national) conditions, or what has come to be knownas micro-marketing. But it is these depoliticized identities that also create thedrive to resecure narrow identities so as to escape McWorlds monotono usly firm essentials.The heterogenising forces of globalization, or what Robertsondescribes as the universalization of particularismclaims, in which not only has the expectation of uniqueness become institutionalized and globally widespread, but the local and the particular itself isproduced on the basis of global norms. In other words, globalization of cultural norms has produced not just the legitimacy of the idea of the nation-state, butalso the expectation that such nation-states should embody unique and distinctidentities.This once again represents the globalization of the nationalist idea,the idea thatnation-states are legitimate because the nation is a unique, authenticcultural entity, with its singular and distinct identity. Beyer, in describingRobertsons work, calls this the relativization of particularisms, which leads to a search for particularistic identities. The globalization of this idea createsthe potential for declarations of national identity, and can ultimately cr eate themomentum for fragmentation of existing nation-states that are somehow seen asinauthenticand hence illegitimate.To the extent that such differentiationalso occurs as a response to certainhomogenizing drives of globalization,thisalso represents a success of the nationalist idea. Assertions of collective identityboth as an element of, as well as in response to, globalization is then morenation-producing than nation-destroying. This certainly is an effect of globalization that, in keeping with the argument of the last section on fragmentation,is not a threat to the nation-state but a measure of its success.The Altered Nation-State Panitch in Mittelman says, globalization is authored by states and is primarily aboutreorganizing rather than bypassing them. Rather than suggesting that the nation-state is fated to throw out in the face of globalization, or that it will remainthe direct unaltered unit of international relations, there is a postulation of an alteredstate. The natio n-state is said to exist now in one form, to have existed in the past inanother, and to be transforming itself actively into a third.This is a proposition that assumes a resilient but elastic nation-state, one that evolves over time, and whichbecomes more or less influential in different spheres depending on the utility of thatinfluence. One example of this altered state thesis is that proposed by Philip Cerny, who suggests that the nation-state is not dead, although its role has changed. He envisages the transformation of the nation-state from being agoverning system concerned with welfare to being a system concerned with competition. Unsurprisingly he calls this the competition state.The competition state exists in aworld of increased fragmentation and globalization, and is characterized by a decrease ofpublic services and an increase of private services or industry. The competition state is amix of civil and business organization, and is concerned with effective returns oninvestm ent or effort. In the long run the state is developing into an enterpriseassociation, with key civic, public and constitutional functions subordinate to theglobal marketplace. Another example of the altered state is envisioned by social lion Panitch.Panitch thinks that globalizing pressures even on advanced industrial states has led to a reorganization of the structural power relations within states but has not diminished therole of the state. The nation-state is changing, but is not facing adisempowerment or loss of sovereignty. Indeed, Panitch would understand globalization as being written by nation-states, and the role of the state in collecting taxation,providing security, and having the monopoly of legitimate violence inside its sovereignborders as being unchanged.Globalization and adjustment of the state role is an attempt to secure global and domestic rights of capital, and not aneo-medieval dissolution of the state apparatus. Conclusion There are, no doubt, a number of threats to the coherence and durability of particular existing nation-states, but that doesnt weaken the nation-state as a historical form, as a contemporary organizing principle for collective cultural and political identity. Certainly, the severe crisis of particular nation-states, such as Afghanistan,Bosnia, Rwanda and Somalia, can generate a sense of anxiety about thefuture of the nation-state itself.Yet this sense of crisis has not seeped into acrossthe globe and most existing nation-states remain relatively stable and viabledespite the existence of various ethno-nationalist movements within them. The graph given above shows the trend of nation-state over a period of 100 old age. The graph is the statistical evidence of the appeal and continuance of the nation-state system as a dominant cultural-political system. In the article which was the basis of this analysis, Saquib Karamat indicates economic globalization, cultural globalization and blurring of the national ideologies as threat to the existence of nation-states.Furthermore, he says global issues also question the sovereignty of nation-states. But as analyzed above, economic globalization and cultural globalization in fact strengthen the nation-state than weakening it. While blurring of national ideology is the contemporary issue of weak states, who in some way need to put into work a national project of nation-building to keep their territories intact. The global issues like global warming dont question the authority of the state rather they implicate that all nations need to work in such a model of communication which enables to reach a solution of common consent.Now, the analysis on the future of nation-state has made some points clear, that a nation need not to be only one with common descent (ethnic nations), there can also be nations who share common boundaries (demotic nation). A state, which has either ethnic nation or demotic nation, needs to be coherent in order to remain legitimate. Th e historical-political form of nation-state was based on one nation one state rule. The concept of sovereignty has changed from absolute sovereignty to degrees of sovereignty and interdependence. The process of nation-building or nationalism is a tates tool to keep it coherent. All national identities are constructed by national elites and weak states which are facing the threat of territorial disintegration should consciously employ national labor in nation-building. The forces of fragmentation and forces of globalization which seems to put at risk the existence of nation-state system, actually strengthen nation-state as a historical form and are driving forces in the evolution of the nation-state as discusses above in the respective sections. So, nation-state needs to alter itself in order to remain competent system for the years to come.The necessity is evident from the change in the conceptof sovereignty. Since it has changed, nation-state should also be restructured in the fac e of globalization and fragmentation. Transferring some kinds of authority tosupranational entities, or devolving power downwards through decentralization are ways of coping with these changes, and can help retain state legitimacyrather than threaten it. Bibliography 1. E. K. Francis, Interethnic relations An Essay in Sociological system (New York Elsevier, 1976). 2. Alfred Cobban, the Nation State and National Self Determination (London HarperCollins, 1969). 3.Clifford Geertz, mature Societies and New States (New York The Free Press, 1963) Edward Shils, Primordial, Personal, Sacred and Civil Ties , British Journal of Sociology, Vol. VIII, No. 2, (1957) Pierre Van den Berghe, prevail and heathenity A Sociological Perspective , Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 1, No. 4 (1978). 4. Paul Brass, elect(ip) Groups, Symbol Manipulation and Ethnic Identity among the Muslims of southeastern Asia , in D. Taylor and M. Yapp (eds. ), Political Identity in South Asia (London Curzon Press,b19 79) Eric Hobsbawm, Introduction Inventing imposts and Mass-producing Traditions Europen1870 1914 , in E.Hobsbawm and T. Ranger (eds. ), The Invention of Tradition (New York Cambridge University Press, 1983), pp. 1 14 Tom Nairn, The Break-up of Britain Crisis and Neo-nationalism, 2ndedn (London Verso, 1977). 5. Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London Verso, 1983) 6. Kathryn A. Manzo, Creating Boundaries The Politics of Race and Nation (London Lynne Rienner, 1996) 7. TalalAsad, Genealogies of Religion (Baltimore Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993). 8.Robin Cohen, Diasporas and the Nation-state From Victims to Challengers , International Affairs, Vol. 72, No. 3 (1996) 9. Ernest Mandel, Late Capitalism, Joris De Bres (trans. ) (London NLB, 1972). 10. Andrew Linklater, Beyond Realism and Marxism decisive theory and International Relations New York St. Martins Press, 1990). 11. Immanuel Wallerstein, The capitalist World pa rsimoniousness (Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 1979 12. Immanuel Wallerstein, The Politics of the World Economy The States, the Movements and the Civilizations (Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 1984). 3. Robin Murray, The internationalization of Capital and the Nation-state , New leftfield Review, Vol. 67 (1971), 14. cocksucker Dicken, Global Shift The Internationalization of Economic Activity, 2nd edn (New York Guilford Press, 1992). 15. James H. Mittelman (ed. ), Globalization Critical Reflections (Boulder Lynne Rienner, 1996) 16. R. OBrien, Global Financial Integration The conclusion of Geography (London Sage, 1990 17. John Dunn (ed. ), The Economic Limits to Politics (Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 1990). 18. John Dunn, Introduction Crisis of the Nation State? , Political Studies, Vol. 42, surplus Issue (1994) 19. Helen Thompson, The Nation-state and International Capital in Historical Perspective , Government and Opposition, Vol. 32, No. 1 (1997) 20. Leo Panitch, Rethinking the Role of the State, (Boulder Lynne Rienner, 1996) 21. Roland Robertson, Globalization Social opening and Global Culture (London Sage, 1992) 22. Roland Robertson as quoted in Peter Beyer, Religion and Globalization (London Sage, 1994) 23. Stuart Hall, Cultural Identity and Diaspora, in Jonathan Rutherford (ed. , Identity Community, Culture, Difference (London Lawrence &Wishart, 1990). 24. Connie L. McNeely, Constructing the Nation-state (Westport Greenwood Press, 1995). 25. Benjamin R. Barber, Jihad Vs. McWorld , The Atlantic Monthly (March 1992) 26. KemichiOhmae, The Borderless World (London Harper Business, 1990). 27. Kofman, E. and Young, G. Globalization Theory and Practice, (London Pinter,1996) 28. ShampaBiswas, W(h)ither the Nation-state? National and State identity in the hardihood of Fragmentation and Globalization, Global society, (16 (2), Abingdon Carfax. , 2002).