The myth of a ‘Global’ economy: Enduring national foundations and emerging regional realities

Zysman, John

doi:10.1080/13563469608406251

Cited by 180 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to this view, globalization is an unavoidable fact and it is improper to fear it. Some socialists (such as Zysman, 1996) who believe in this idea, consider the negative consequences and effects of globalization less significance and argue that globalization would not decrease the power of nations. In fact, states would be more powerful in local and international areas (Farazmand, 2001).…”

Section: Theoretical Perspectives Toward Globalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Globalization and Global Innovations

Danaeefard¹,

Abbasi²

2011

The Systemic Dimension of Globalization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Theoretical Perspectives Toward Globalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Globalization and Global Innovations

Danaeefard¹,

Abbasi²

2011

The Systemic Dimension of Globalization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The first is the literature critical of the 'new global economy' thesis (see e.g. Wade 1996;Zysman 1996;Sorge 1999). The second is the 'varieties of capitalism' literature that calls into question the convergence thesis according to which globalization is producing one dominant model of market economy (Berger and Dore 1996;Goricheva 1997;Hollingsworth and Boyer 1997;Streeck and Crouch 1997;Streeck 1992).…”

Section: National Economies and Economic Nationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Homo Nationis: The Psychosocial Infrastructure of the Nation-State Order

Pickel¹

2006

The Problem of Order in the Global Age

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The central argument of this paper is that the global expansion of sovereign nation-states has been accompanied by the emergence of a particular type of modern individual, homo nationis. The general significance of this argument lies in the fact that this personality type, which is either taken for granted (untheorized) or ignored, constitutes an integral component of modern social order. That is, in addition to the constitutional and institutional foundations of the state and its political economy, the nation-state has a psychosocial foundation -a "national habitus." The concepts of homo nationis and national habitus underscore that modern individuals are historical individuals, i.e. they have personality structures that are unlike those of individuals in other historical epochs, and that they should be explicitly conceptualized as such, rather than as a transhistorical homo oeconomicus or homo sociologicus. Many fundamental social processes, including those discussed under globalization, can be better explained with such a conception. The historical-structural context for homo nationis is the world order of nation-states that has only recently finished formally incorporating all other social formations from tribes to the remnants of empires, as well as the specific state-society to which the individual belongs.The paper notes the interest Durkheim and Weber had in habitual behaviour and draws on the exemplary work of Norbert Elias on national habitus to sketch its conception of homo nationis. The paper then assembles further evidence for the existence and significance of national habitus by perusing a diverse set of scholarly literatures, including national culture in business studies, national economies and economic nations, nationalism, comparative sociology, and normative political theory.

show abstract

“…2 Much of the previous literature was premised on the idea that globalization would push all countries toward neoliberalism and deregulation, encouraging firms to lower labor costs and increase labor market flexibility while undermining the power of unions to prevent these (Kapstein 1996;Katz and Darbishire 1999;Martin and Ross 1999). However, convergence theories predicting a uniform slide into deregulation have not been borne out (Berger and Dore 1996;Boyer and Hollingsworth 1997;Ferner and Hyman 1998;Wallerstein, Golden, and Lange 1997;Zysman 1996). Moreover, theories that attributed the resilience of traditional bargaining institutions in some countries to successful union defense do not provide much purchase, either, on observed cross-national patterns of stability and change (e.g., Katz 1993;Turner 1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%