Dani Rodrik – Who needs the nation state?
Rodrik, D. (2013) Roepke Lecture in Economic Geography–Who Needs the Nation State? Economic
Geography, 89(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2012.01177.x
Arguments against nation-state
The nation-state is viewed as an archaic (= verouderd) construct that is at odds with twenty-first
century realities. It has neither much relevance nor much power. Increasingly, it is nongovernmental
organizations, global csr, or global governance on which experts place their faith to achieve public
purpose and social goals. It is common to portray national politicians as the sole beneficiaries of the
nation-state, on which their privileges and lofty status depend.
How may the economic unity of Europe be guaranteed, while preserving complete freedom of cultural
development to the peoples living there?
- Get rid of the nation-state: completely liberate productive forces from the fetters imposed
upon them by the nation-state.
Many moral philosophers and liberal economists treat national borders as irrelevant. Sen and Singer
think of national borders as a hindrance–a practical obstacle that can and should be overcome as the
world becomes more interconnected through commerce and advances in communications.
Economic case against nation-state: it is the source of many of the transaction costs that block fuller
global economic integration.
- Import tariffs, capital controls, visas, etc.
- The multiplicity of sovereigns creates jurisdictional discontinuities and associated transaction
costs (currencies, legal regimes, etc.)
Arguments pro nation-state
The nation-state has been widely perceived as being overwhelmed by developments larger than it.
However, it has proved remarkably resilient and remains the main determinant of the global
distribution of income, the primary locus of market-supporting institutions, and the chief repository
of personal attachments and affiliations.
Our economic fortunes are determined primarily by where (which country) we are born and only
secondarily by our location on the income-distribution scale -> most of global inequality is accounted
for by inequality across rather than within nations.
National identity remains alive and well, even in some surprising corners of the world, despite the
push of transnational affinities and the pull of local connections. National identity is vastly stronger
than identity as a “global citizen.” National identity also exerts a stronger pull than membership in
the local community. Furthermore, European citizens feel little attachment to the European Union.
The idea of a citizenship in the EU seems as remote to Europeans as that of global citizenship.
European attachments have worn even thinner since 2008.
In the global financial crisis of 2008, it was domestic policymakers who had to step in to prevent an
economic meltdown: it was national governments that bailed out banks, pumped liquidity, provided
Rodrik, D. (2013) Roepke Lecture in Economic Geography–Who Needs the Nation State? Economic
Geography, 89(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2012.01177.x
Arguments against nation-state
The nation-state is viewed as an archaic (= verouderd) construct that is at odds with twenty-first
century realities. It has neither much relevance nor much power. Increasingly, it is nongovernmental
organizations, global csr, or global governance on which experts place their faith to achieve public
purpose and social goals. It is common to portray national politicians as the sole beneficiaries of the
nation-state, on which their privileges and lofty status depend.
How may the economic unity of Europe be guaranteed, while preserving complete freedom of cultural
development to the peoples living there?
- Get rid of the nation-state: completely liberate productive forces from the fetters imposed
upon them by the nation-state.
Many moral philosophers and liberal economists treat national borders as irrelevant. Sen and Singer
think of national borders as a hindrance–a practical obstacle that can and should be overcome as the
world becomes more interconnected through commerce and advances in communications.
Economic case against nation-state: it is the source of many of the transaction costs that block fuller
global economic integration.
- Import tariffs, capital controls, visas, etc.
- The multiplicity of sovereigns creates jurisdictional discontinuities and associated transaction
costs (currencies, legal regimes, etc.)
Arguments pro nation-state
The nation-state has been widely perceived as being overwhelmed by developments larger than it.
However, it has proved remarkably resilient and remains the main determinant of the global
distribution of income, the primary locus of market-supporting institutions, and the chief repository
of personal attachments and affiliations.
Our economic fortunes are determined primarily by where (which country) we are born and only
secondarily by our location on the income-distribution scale -> most of global inequality is accounted
for by inequality across rather than within nations.
National identity remains alive and well, even in some surprising corners of the world, despite the
push of transnational affinities and the pull of local connections. National identity is vastly stronger
than identity as a “global citizen.” National identity also exerts a stronger pull than membership in
the local community. Furthermore, European citizens feel little attachment to the European Union.
The idea of a citizenship in the EU seems as remote to Europeans as that of global citizenship.
European attachments have worn even thinner since 2008.
In the global financial crisis of 2008, it was domestic policymakers who had to step in to prevent an
economic meltdown: it was national governments that bailed out banks, pumped liquidity, provided
