Juan Enriquez ; "There is ever more pressure on central governments to justify their existence."

Globalising Nation-states

The late nineteenth and early twentieth century were the glory days of the nation-state. Countries were far more closed economically, bureaucratically; in migration, capital and labour.

Due to the protectionist nature of the nation-state, they grew larger to reduce the internal costs of trade and bureaucracy. The larger nation-states that bordered on empire, shed their expensive and burdensome external colonies who then formed their own nation-states.

Australia being a good example of that process.

The big ol' centralised nation-state was a product of the technology of the time. Communications were still slow, as was trade, the movement of capital and the flows of labour. But they were fast enough to support larger centralised political and bureaucratic structures than had been previously possible.

As the twentieth century progressed; so did technology. Communications started getting faster, intra-nation-state travel became easier, faster and more democratic (poorer people could afford it).

The closed and inviolate structures of the nation-state collapsed into world-wide warfare. Not once; but twice in the space of thirty years.

Where once nation-states had bi-lateral treaties with each other that conflated quickly to world war, these were sought to be replaced with supra-national structures which over-lapped the sovereignty of the nation-states.

This was a significant loss of sovereignty for the nation-states despite agreeing to many of the supra-national policies willingly.

The recent American neo-conservative and Australian conservative doctrines have tried to re-establish nation-state sovereignty through hostility to the UN, WTO and IMF and seeking to go around those structures with bi-lateral trade treaties and non-UN military deployments. It is a losing battle however.

Post WWII has seen an acceleration in globalisation as the movement of money, goods and people were drastically reduced in cost. This acceleration hit light-speed with the internet as global communication commoditised drastically.

The former responsibilities of the nation-state's big central bureaucracy were border-control, money-control, trade-management and customs.

Globalisation has sucker-punched each of these.

Border control is becoming meaningless. In the US approximately 12 million Mexicans live and work there without state recognition, control or sovereignty over them. The nation-state bureaucracy, legislation and social services are meaningless to those 12 million. They survive, thrive and live without the state.

Australia faces the similar pressures despite having oceans between it and other countries. The nation-state does not know how to handle border-protection. Australia has established camps offshore under executive decree - a state of emergency.

This has been costly. In 2002 it cost $55,400 per refugee to house them offshore. It is cheaper for the nation-state to let them into the country and put them on the dole. The US is finding similar issues, the money being spent on border protection has doubled, but the same number of border-jumpers are being caught as in the past.

Nation-states also act as major inhibitors to labour flows. Despite this people are moving around the world in increasing numbers for work. The Australian diaspora is approximately 5% of the population who are living and working outside of Australia at any one time.

Trade has been opening up, but even here the nation-state is an inhibitor to prosperity. Take Apple's iTunes for instance. It is an internet service which by existing; has global reach. Yet it is not a global service at this point in time as the nation-state's local laws and regulations.

Other than the nation-state, there is no reason why iTunes should not have been globally available to consumers when it was turned on.

Shrinking Nation-states

The increasing flows of money, trade and labour have meant that the costs for local political autonomy are decreasing. No longer does a smaller political system have to maintain currency, an internal economic market, or local subsidies to agriculture/manufacturing to ensure that the population has sufficient economic access to needs and wants.

In the late nineteenth century a large nation-state like Austro-Hungary was necessary to maintain internal prosperity. Today Austria, Hungary, Czech Republic, Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Liechtenstein, Romania, Bulgaria and Slovakia exist as nation-states.

Additionally, Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia are now part of the European Union, effectively outsourcing currency and central banking to the supra-national organisation.

Canberra: Justify

Australia has flown in the face of globalisation and radically centralised its structure to something approximating nineteenth century Britain. Federalism, subsidiarity, local autonomy and state sovereignty are no longer political principles or practise in Australia.

Canberra and its political parties are united in seeking glory under unitary government. The nation-state level becomes the sole location of government.

Australia is not so inviolate an entity though. The Commonwealth and NSW nearly went to civil war over payment of debt issues. Western Australia successfully voted to secede from the Commonwealth. There are separatist movements in Northern NSW and Queensland. Australia has several micro-states within its borders.

The federal government has managed to quell many of these political disturbances in the last fifty years by dominating taxation and leaving the states vassal to the Commonwealth's hand-outs; but even so, there remain highly provincial cultural and economic identities in Australia.

If Australia does undergo devolution, or untying as Enriquez calls it, then there will most likely be Western Australia and Northern Territory split off as one economic group; NSW and Victoria as another; and Queensland as the third. All three of those economic grouping have strong shared cultural/ethnic identities as well.

Australia is not inviolate and indivisible.

The Australian Nation-state

There is still a role for the nation-state. The inter-tangled international issues, treaties and sovereignties will only increase in complexity as they incrementally over-lap more and more. The nation-state is the best location for collective decision making and expertise on these issues.

While there are still nation-states defence will remain an issue and this is best handled at the national level. The same goes for disturbances in globalised order such as piracy, human trafficking, illegal fishing etc.

The nation-state will remain important, especially its political and international arm, but as a unitary and central authority domestically, it is flying in the face of the efficiencies globalisation brings to local politics, autonomy and sovereignty.

Australia needs a dose of devolution and decentralisation, otherwise the increasing centralisation may lead to political violence, provincial disturbance and maybe even untying.

Globalisation has meant an increasing demand for technical professions due to knowledge based economies. Juan Enriquez argues that these workers have little incentive to remain in backward countries and instead compete on the global labor market for remuneration and opportunities. Nation-states have changed their citizenship laws to accommodate them. These labor flows concentrate wealth, but also limits the actions of the nation-state as these labor skills are very mobile.

From the Untied States of America*:

Among the most talented and mobile, single citizenship is rapidly eroding.

Eighty-nine countries now allow dual citizenship. Governments grant these rights because they want to attract capital, skilled workers, the young and talented.

Enriquez argues that a result of this globalised labor market is that it forces heterogeneous wealth distribution. He uses the example that 41% of homes that cost over one million are in California and Cambridge, Massachusetts has 10% of single family homes costing over the million mark (the book was published in 2005).

From personal experience, Northern Virginia has another concentration of wealth with Loudoun County having the highest per household income in the United States. Those dynamics are no stranger to Australia either, especially Sydney.

Enriquez' thesis is that large disparities - whether economic, wealth, knowledge or education - grow between ethnic, regional or religious groups then it puts pressure on the nation-state to fragment.

Enriquez also argues that if nations don't restructure to attract and accommodate the global labor pool of knowledge workers then those workers will take advantage of their mobility and go to regions of great opportunity; domestic or international. Ohio in the US is probably a good example of that effect as is India and its roving technical workforce.

Australia was pretty late to nationalism preferring the open-ended relationship of the British Empire and Commonwealth often to its own detriment.

One of the good aspects of the multi-ethnic empires, including the British Empire , was the easy going attitude to citizenship. It was not until the 1980s that Australia passed legislation stopping British subjects that were not nationalised from voting. Even then it was grandfathered in.

If Australia wants to put virtual cement shoes on the knowledge workers that come here, it would do worse than politically engaging them with enfranchisement with a work visa or permanent residency.

*btw don't buy the book. It is an eyesore and is laid out horribly.