Zysman: The Myth of a 'Global' Economy: Enduring National Foundations and Emerging Retional Realities

J Zysman, “The myth of a 'Global' economy: Enduring national foundations and emerging regional realities,” New Political Economy 1, no. 2 (1996): 157-184.

*Note: Pagination taken from Word document

Globalization is a label placed on a phenomena that no one understands. Those who say the nation-state will crumble have a very ahistorical view of the situation: governments' roles will change, governance will continue. However, while the state will not wither, this current trend is something that is relatively unique historically. Globalization is change; exactly what that means for who is not very well understood.

" Globalism is thus characterised by multiple government and industrial strategies to cope with the rapidly changing contours of competition" (3).

The world can be divided up into three economic geographies: North America, Asia and Europe. The nature of regional economic groups within these three geographies is explored. Development does not happen within these geographies, or from one region against another, uniformly but in stages.

The author argues that it seems likely that different regional dynamics will emerge from increased globalization.

The issue of convergence is examined: "... does the current period of adaptation and change produce national convergence or, alternatively, will-there be continued lines of parallel development in which particular national resolutions sustain enduring differences?" (8). Four factors are identified that could cause united policy outcomes that do not directly relate to more robust market connections: imitation, negotiations, political compulsion and market compulsion (8).

"In sum, distinct national technological communities do appear to continue in the face of the `globalisation' of markets. And, as important, there is a theoretical basis to belief that they will continue to endure. But the relationship between these technological communities is changing; the significant question simply has to be reposed" (13).

The article continues to asks whether globalization has caused financial systems to converge on a set of normative operating procedures. The conclusion is, in my estimation, a call for nuance.

Institutional Foundations and the Persistence of National Forms:

"Underpinning the analysis and interpretation here is a notion of how a political economy functions. It is worthwhile to make the notion explicit. I sketch here a four-step approach to link institutional and social contexts to the dynamics of national market systems" (19).

Step 1: Institutions that are created by the state define the boundaries in that markets can operate

Step 2: This institutional structure interacts with industrial organization to provide markets with choices.

Step 3: The "major players" are able to dictate the correct logic based on their interactions.

Step 4: Competition from trade is an example of the explication of these factors globally, thus highlighting different market structures in different regions.

And the last paragraph: "In the final analysis, it is the consequence of the endurance of national systems that must concern us. The debates will be about finding mechanisms of accommodating, as much as compressing, that national diversity. As always, marketplaces will rest on institutional foundations that politics create, and this time the politics will be driven by the interplay of national governments and national markets" (23).