ABSTRACT
Scholte (1997) suggests that ‘globalisation’ can refer to an increase in: (a) cross-border relations (or internationalisation); (b) open-border relations (or liberalisation); and (c) trans-border relations (or the relative uncoupling of social relations from territorial frameworks). I agree with Scholte that the third meaning is the most distinctive and useful starting point. Some scholars of globalisation in this third sense focus on the growing importance of ‘the space of flows’ due to, for example, the growth of global finance and trade (Corbridge and Thrift 1994; Agnew and Corbridge 1995) or the advance of information technologies (Castells 1996). Others focus on its relation to external ‘threats’ to sovereign ‘nation-states’ and their traditional modus operandi. There are strong and weak versions of this more ‘state-centred’ account. The strong version (e.g. O'Brien 1992) links this threatening ‘outside’ to the capacity of global finance to undermine state’s monetary and fiscal powers. Scholars favouring a ‘weak globalisation’ (but strong internationalisation) thesis (e.g. Hirst and Thompson 1996) claim only that states’ traditional roles qua sovereign powers or economic managers have been attenuated.
