INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DEMOCRACY AND
CAPITALISM: ASSESSED THROUGH GENERAL WILL AND
ECONOMIC GLOBALIZATION
By
NICHOLAS PRETTY
Integrated Studies Final Project Essay (MAIS 700)
submitted to Dr. RAPHAEL FOSHAY
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts – Integrated Studies
Athabasca, Alberta
DECEMBER, 2012
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ 3
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 4
Democracy & General Will ................................................................................................ 7
Impacts of Globalization on Democracy .......................................................................... 12
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 16
References ......................................................................................................................... 19
2
ABSTRACT
The present state of global capitalism, especially as it is unfolding in Western societies,
has a major impact on the progression of democracy. Some supporters of globalization
argue that economic global expansion assists the democratization process, while others
theorize capitalistic expansion devolves democratic processes and institutions. In order
to test this debate the idea of ‘general will’ has been brought into play to assess how
economic globalization has impacted Western democracy. The objective is to illustrate
that capitalistic agents supporting the overall globalization process are essentially
negating the individual collective determination of the democratic process. Globalization
may ultimately assist in promoting democratic institutions, but this democratization
process is essentially underpinned by non-democratic purposes. The purpose of this
analysis is not to assess the results of the economic expansion and its impacts; instead its
purpose is to evaluate the objectives sustaining the expansion. Through the use of
Rousseau’s conception of general will, the paper clearly demonstrates that a vast majority
of people (i.e. general will) has little or no impact on how economic globalization forces
are shaping the globe. This is not to suggest people have no say in global affairs, but
when corporate capital interest is at play the people’s will has minute impact on the
outcomes. Ultimately, this leads to the conclusion that the forces of capitalism, with a
profit driven motive, are at odds with a fundamental principle of democracy, the general
will. The argument that globalization, via economic means, promotes democracy is in
error as it is led by the will of a few as opposed to the general will of the people, and,
although it may produce democratic outcomes, is not democratic in nature.
3
Introduction
The vast amount of literature on democracy and capitalism implies how significant these
concepts are in Western society. Recent events surrounding the economic crises in the
West have brought the two concepts to the forefront once again. On one side are those
who believe economic globalization promotes democratic practices, while on the
opposite side are those who contend capitalism infringes on political democracy by
eliminating individual rights and freedoms. Through this analysis insight will be gained
as to the interrelationship of democracy and capitalism via examining the economic
globalization and general will interaction. The question remains are capitalism and
democracies intertwined so intricately that they cannot be separated or are these two
solely independent concepts which intersect or coexist at the same time. What is the
nature of the relationship which may exist between western democracy and capitalism
from a global economic perspective?
Economic globalization is not a new concept in the world mercantile systems. Economic
globalization on various levels has been present in one form or another throughout most
of history as people pursued the riches of the world. Presently, the virtual unfettered
expansion of capitalism throughout the world, in respect to large international
corporations that need new markets and resources, has placed a great deal of pressure on
the global geo-political landscape. The contention here is that, as the world becomes
more integrated and interconnected, the will of the people has become relegated or at
least manipulated by the attributes of the capitalistic expansion spreading across the
globe. By exploring how economic globalization (representing capitalism) interacts with
4
democracy (general will), an understanding of the relationship will be brought forth. The
affiliation between capitalism and democracy has been one of converging and diverging
themes throughout most of modern history (Smith 47). Thus it is conceivable that the
interrelationship of the two is so intertwined as to become unresponsive to democratic
traditions and principles that stemmed its modern conceptual framing (Reis 252).
Present global conditions highlight a need for a more thorough investigation into the
relationship between the capitalist movement and the ideals of democracy.
In the twenty-first century it appears that global power becomes more closely linked to
the domain of capitalism as it becomes more affiliated with corporate expansion and
interests (Reich 39). The ever expanding multinational global corporations, which once
sought the protection of national borders, are now overrunning many national boundaries.
In a few short decades corporate interests have permeated many facets of the geopolitical global economy, influencing and peddling products while pursuing cheaper
sources of labour and resources. Nation states and capital development have become so
interwoven that it has become difficult to assess which is the forerunner and which is the
follower in respect to controlling the prevailing economic and political power. Even
though Western capitalistic hegemony remains the most blatant and inescapable power
presently operating on the globe (Tabb 55), and while other developing nations (China,
India, Brazil, etc.) are changing the global power players, capital concerns remain the
principal driver for present power dynamic.
5
Consequences of globalization and the corporate hegemony to be examined are
encapsulated by Anthony Birch:
As the chief arena for the exercise of democratic politics is the government of the
national state, the following brief review will focus on the extent to which these
globalizing developments have actually diminished the authority and powers of
national states and the effect of the changes on the character and extent of
democracy (30).
Recognizing that globalization consists of more than just economic global trends, for
simplistic purposes it is here that this analysis will concentrate its discussion. There
appears to be a focus of power underpinning the corporate agenda, which is influencing
other social, cultural and political phenomena. As the catalyst for a variety of societal
frameworks, the forces of globalization appear to be diminishing the barriers of macro
and micro politics, or the local and the global (Hopper 142) to transform the structures of
democratic society. The capitalistic political influences within the democratic state to be
addressed here contend that economic forces associated with globalization degrade not
only the nation state, as a democratic structure, but more importantly influences the
individual rights which are claimed to be fundamental within Western democracies.
There are some who believe globalization will lead to the end of inequality and the
promotion of economic euphoria (Prindle 251). Recent global occurrences such as the
911 attacks, continuing African crises, Iraq wars, global economic collapse, all confirm
that there is an atmosphere of discontentment and ambiguity on the global scene. In
Western democracies the disparity between the rich and the poor continues to expand.
The once powerful middle class continues to diminish, becoming a less significant voice
6
in democratic nations. The unrestrained expansion of corporate interest permeates many
aspects of our societal milieu in the Western world. This paper will accentuate the
negation of the essential democratic ideal, the people’s will, by the forces that are
underpinning the economic global expansion.
Democracy & General Will
As a starting point on the discussion of democracy the term ‘general will’, as discussed
by Jean Jacques Rousseau, will be used to simplify how a democracy should be
determined. ‘General Will’ has become synonymous with the collective will of the
people (Trachtenberg 9). Although the ideals of democracy have recreated themselves
over the centuries, the accepted wisdom of Western democracy involves concepts
attributed to ideas of liberalism including: freedom to vote, freedom of religion, freedom
of the press, freedom of thought. The foundation underlying democracy is everyone
affected by a decision should have the right to be included in the decision making
process, and decisions made without input from the people should be avoided (Agné
434). Participation is inherent within democracy and fundamental to its development and
continuing polity (Birch 104). Therefore, if corporate interests are leading the charge of
globalization, and the impending political changes, then the participation of the people’s
will should be included within this process. It appears that corporations are making
decisions with only negligible input from people. General will is not a priority within
corporate agendas as corporations are not constituted democracies. Instead are more
closely associated with a top-down governance style where leadership decisions are
7
rarely disputed or even considered in the public realm. Although corporate socialism
appears to be on the rise, the fact remains that corporations only raison d'être is profit
related, not to satisfy the desires of the populace.
It may be argued that democracy and capitalism expanded simultaneously and are
interconnected within the same sociopolitical framework. There is no doubt that both
tenets have flourished by their reciprocal relationship. However, to posit that they both
are conceived from a similar ideological context is somewhat shortsighted.
The
deficiency in terms of participation has been a consequence of the process of
globalization (Tabb 417), therefore implying that the two concepts, while they may have
arisen in tandem, the corporation has, arguably (like the military) never been internally
democratic. Though there is much conjecture surrounding the process of economic
globalization, which continues to evolve, there is evidence supporting the lack of
participation in contemporary democracies. The past decades have witnessed nation
states and the political representation of public, as well as input from the public,
consistently being marginalized by the overlying capitalistic predisposition (Tabb 80).
This limiting of the nation state is taking away the ‘real’ voice of the people, as there is
no other avenue for directly expressing their micro and macro concerns.
General will is an idea which grew from Rousseau’s “The Social Contract.” In his study,
Rousseau refers to ‘general will’ as relating to the “common interest” (Book II, Part 3).
This is often separate from “the will of all” which Rousseau characterizes as “takes
private interest into account” (Ibid). There have been numerous debates regarding the
8
interpretation of ‘general will’; however for the purpose of this paper we shall adopt the
definition provided by Gopal Sreenivasan (545) who concludes general will “is the
totality of unrescinded decisions made by a community - that is, of an association of
individuals contractually constituted as a ‘moral and collective body’ - when its
deliberation is subject to certain constraints.” A more simplified notion is that general
will is comprised of the collective decision making processes of the people who have
moral obligations to a communal idea of right. Both Sreenivasan and Richard Dagger
(361) incorporate the belief of collective/community and moral/just aspects within the
idea of general will. This is further connected to democratic ideals through the work of
Ethan Putterman, who describes what a strong democracy should entail:
Knowledge of how to govern is "communal and consensual," and through the
holding of televised debates, town hall meetings, referendums, plebiscites, open
ballot initiatives, and other practical expressions of citizen self-rule, the people
"deepen" the quality of democracy by expressing their will directly. (459)
We can now hypothesize on a deeper connection between the concepts of democracy and
general will. To state that general will inherently belongs to the structure of democracy is
not a stretch, and indeed in this paper is considered a prerequisite and inseparable. The
position of Sofia Näsström (808) succinctly epitomizes the thoughts of the
interrelationship between democracy and general will by stating “[D]emocracy always
falls back upon a community of citizens who are collectively self-governing.” Therefore
any premise of democracy must employ the collective action of the citizens for the public
good, not for any individual good.
Although corporations are recognized in fact,
absurdly, as “persons” who get to act in their individual (self-) interest, and in contrast to
9
being led by people, corporations do not confer with the general public to ascertain a
community consensus regarding their objectives.
The primary modus operandi for
corporations remains to be compelled by profit.
The manifestation of democracy and general will assisted in the formation of nationstates. The birth of nation-states based on liberal ideology can be traced back to the
modern philosophers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in Europe. The idea of
a territory with borders encompassing a people with common ethnic, religious, cultural
and social identity under a common set of laws and/or constitution (Reis 253) is a
relatively new phenomenon springing from the modern era. These nations are not rigid
structures, but are malleable formations adapting to the constantly changing global
environment.
The basis for the debate surrounding the intermixing of capitalism and
democracy stems from whether capitalism promotes democracy, just as western
democracy promoted capitalism. Although the two originated in proximity of time and
space as ideological precepts, and can even be seen as symbiotic in their early stages of
development in modernity, it appears that there is a continual flux, diverging and
converging throughout recent history (Näsström 812).
It appears that the present
condition of the democracy-capitalism relationship is one of divergence.
In order for globalization to paradigmatically change the power structure(s) there will
need to be a transformation, not only of how a nation is democratically constituted, but
perhaps more importantly, to demonstrate to the citizens that decreasing the significance
of the nation in the global context will assist in achieving a more democratized world. A
10
citizen is assumed to be that of a sovereign entity, in this case a nation, can we have a
global nation? How can a citizen be convinced to willingly sacrifice one’s national
democracy for a more global idea of democracy? Of course the other side of this
question is does a citizen have to be convinced, or can they be manipulated into accepting
a more globalized ‘democracy’? Finally, if the citizen is deceived into a more globalized
notion of democracy is this truly democracy in the sense that it is the citizens’ general
will or a will forced upon them? The argument put forth here is that the citizen is a more
unwilling than willing participant in the whole process of economic globalization, thus
democratic ideals are negated (Harvey 232). Just as citizens have the right to break a
nation apart into smaller entities, they should have the same right to join together.
Thus, when we talk about the global village, we are referring to a relatively small
portion of humanity: the affluent, the powerful, and the informed, who do really
possess a transnational character. The bulk of the world’s population, while
affected by the planetary character of communications, production, distribution,
and accumulation, does not partake of the benefits of a new social regime. The
negative consequences of internationalization have a greater impact on the lives of
most people than the promises of a unified and nurturing global social order (Nef
63).
Economic globalization offers no opportunities for the will of the people to amalgamate
globally or even regionally, people are carried by the will of a few who seek capitalistic
interests.
11
Impacts of Globalization on Democracy
We shall look at two schools of thought debating the nature and outcomes of
globalization. The first is pro-globalization supporters’ who affirm globalization will
result in a more global, communal, unified world under the supremacy of a pseudo or real
supranational representation. Subsequently, as the world becomes more integrated the
ideals of democracy will spread throughout the globe due to economic globalization. The
second perspective, the anti-globalization faction, concludes globalization is a veiled
attempt to reduce the will and ability of the people to participate within society’s geopolitical structures. These negative impacts of globalization are accomplished through an
innate ability of capitalism to alienate, and alter democracy for their own purpose(s).
The economic stimuli which advance the globalization process are not newly derived
developments. The tenets of global integration and economic expansion were founded in
modernity (Ellwood 12) when European explorers set out to find new lands and resources
to be used for their own exploitive purposes. Modernity also set the stage for the Age of
Science and the expansion of capitalistic ideology highlighted with the growth of the
mercantile class. The continuum of capitalist hegemony persisted through the centuries,
with the early modern merchants then proceeding into the industrial ages. Thinkers such
as Adam Smith to more contemporary economic theorists such as John Maynard Keynes
exalt ability of capitalistic forces which have remained the dominant force in Western
society, and the globe.
12
Expressing globalization from an economic perspective does not fully address the
deconstructive nature of the process on democracy.
Some view globalization as a
political process which heightens the democratic process.
Joseph Lewandowski’s
interpretation of globalization portrays a more positive characterization.
The basic if somewhat elusive idea is that the radical forces of globalization,
powered by information and communication technologies, promote
democratization by lifting agents out of the spatio-temporal confines of the local
and linking them to ‘the global’. In this way globalization is characterized not as a
hegemonic agent of world-wide capitalism but rather as a disembedding agent of
global democracy and social equality, and thus as a transformative force to be
welcomed by democratic theorists and intensified by global policy-makers (115116).
Although there is some merit to this interpretation of globalization, it is somewhat
problematic in that it lacks the participation of the people’s will. The power sustaining
the forces of globalization is not representative of democratic principles but is merely an
agent of capitalistic hegemony (Harvey 218). Even though a more global society may
result and even exist, the democratization argument appears to be nothing more than a
façade for the inclinations of the capitalist agenda (Reich 42). Michael Goodhart (528)
states that “the will of the people is increasingly subject to the whim of the market,”
further enhancing the view that economic globalization is disguising its objective(s) in
the socio-cultural transformation taking place on the global scene with that of democratic
principles. Furthermore, as Goodhart (528) details, “Citizens of the Western democracies
nonetheless feel themselves terribly aggrieved by [globalization].”
The debate of
whether globalization and democracy are mutually inclusive is becoming more
13
contentious as the two notions appear to be diverging in respect to each respective
fundamental objective(s).
Ronaldo Munck (11) summarizes Karl Polanyi’s assessment of globalization by arguing
“that there was a ‘double movement’ at work globally, of market expansion on one hand
and of social control of it on the other hand.” This clearly illustrates the power economic
globalization has on shaping the global society. Globalization is a contentious issue
regarding political change on both macro (national & international) and micro (local)
levels in society. In the Western world this debate is most combative as pro and antiglobalization forces are polarized as to specific result of events due to globalization
(Rahman 2008). What are the present impacts of globalization on Western democratic
traditions? It is argued here that the change in the relationship between capitalism and
democracy has more to do with the continuum of existing power structures (i.e. capitalist
hegemony) rather than the transformation of the global polity into a democratic entity.
And, if globalization does appear as a democratic entity it is masquerading as
democratization to perpetuate its own economic hegemonic influence. In other words,
“what globalization problematizes is the elective affinity between liberal democracy and
the sovereign nation state of the Westphalian order” (Munck 13). Munck goes on to
affirm that globalization does not provide a correlation between free market forces within
globalization and the expansion of democratic ideology. We now see how democracy
and the market forces of capitalism are diverging, and how the private corporate interest
is conflicting or at least void of the general will of the people. A prime example of this
foundation is how constant exploitation by Western corporate multi-national interests in
14
the underdeveloped regions of the world is not congruent to the citizens’ perception of
how democracy is to evolve or exist (Rahman 20-21, Putzel 4).
Globalization’s impact on democracy is also evident in how the present Western
democratic nations are being challenged by “a normative assumption underlying the
conventional wisdom on states and democracy - the assumption that the state is the
natural and appropriate container of and vehicle for democracy” (Goodhart 545). Adding
to this Goodhart suggests that deconstructing the democratic national state in respect to
globalization is not correct as the states envision themselves as the natural conveyance of
democratic ideals.
The democratic position affirmed is that evolutionary political
development confirms the state as having more legitimacy than corporate global interests.
In other words, if there is to be a dominant philosophy, capitalism should be subjugated
to democratic will, not the opposite. Citizens presently recognize and identify with their
national governments. There is no current globalization trend offering any solution to the
general will of the people.
Ironically, economic globalization appears to singularly
represent the wishes of the capitalistic corporate world. This is not to say that
globalization will not transform the geo-political landscape into a more supranational
identity with democratic participation, but the present underlying supports for
globalization do not embrace any democratic ideals.
Instead they have economic
interests as their primary and only objective.
In consideration of general will within democratic principles, democracy has been
undermined through the coercive nature of capitalism and as a result “[P]opular
15
participation has been for the most part lacking, which has produced complaints of a
democratic deficit” (Tabb 417). Instead of producing “greater growth and stability the
decades during which globalization on neoliberal terms has been dominant have brought
the world disappointing economic results and for many countries retrogression and crisis”
(Tabb 418).
Public participation within domestic and international affairs of their
governments appears to be declining, this contradicts democratic ideals and the notion of
general will. The motivating forces of globalization are not grassroots, participatory
democratic fundamentalism; instead it is led by elitist class and more imperialistic-like
influences (Harvey 233). This manipulative tendency degrades democratic participation
by enforcing the power of the common capital interest within the top down nature of
economic globalization. This is not emblematic of any democratic tradition or general
will, thus should not be interpreted as democratic. Therefore, in order for globalization to
become more democratically positive it has to be transformed into a precept derived from
the general will of the citizens, and not the private will it presently extols (Harvey 260).
Summary
Whether one sees globalization as a multidimensional force or as the reinforcement of
economic hegemony, its impact is far reaching and still unfolding. In examining how the
forces of economic globalization impact democratic beliefs there are several aspects to
consider.
First, does globalization encourage development of democratic principles
around the globe? Second, do the forces of globalization represent the general will of not
only the citizens of Western world, but also citizens of the globe? Finally, does the
16
present power structure represent the democratic and/or general will of the people? The
answers put forth in this essay attempt to conclude that the present course of globalization
retards the democratic process by proceeding virtually unimpeded without consideration
for the processes of democracy and its ideals.
The present divergence of capitalism and democracy sing the inconsistency of
globalization with democratic principles. Indeed, the present courses of capitalism and
democracy appear to be heading towards a more profound philosophical clash, as the elite
driven forces of economic globalization are contending with people over the moral,
ethical and environmental impacts on a global economy.
The global hegemony of
Western nations to deconstruct democratic principles and to reconstruct them in a manner
to coincide with their exploitive objectives is being challenged. Without consent or input
from the people, the economic forces proceed to engulf the various regions of the world
for the purpose of material gain. Growing discontent within Western nations can be
emblematic of the need for greater democratic participation. It is not possible to prevent
globalization from occurring, nor should we even try.
However, the professing of
globalization as a means to democratize the globe, although altruistic, needs to be
addressed. Since we cannot reshape the past we must look towards the future to trust that
the public shall exert their political power to transform globalization in undertaking the
direction of democratic principles. The first stage of this process will require the people
of Western nations to exert their democratic will by injecting globalization with concepts
of morality and ethics which reflect democratic ideals (Prindle 287).
17
The present continuum associated with the Western economic power paradigm
epitomizes the subjugation of democracy, not its proliferation (Li 53). Western economic
forces pushing globalization attempt to legitimate their efforts through the veneer
assertion of democratic philosophy. This clouding by capitalistic global hegemony in
portraying globalization as democratically accepting must be challenged. Democracy as
representative of the general will of the people must exert its control over capitalism,
which is representative of an elitist economic hegemonic power.
This will allow
democracy to serve as directing globalization rather than being directed by it. The
vacuum of social morality, emblematic with capitalism, denies the general will of the
people. Democracy can only prevail when there is global involvement from all the
people of the world. When a few, representing corporate interest, claim to be agents of
the people’s will, then we must re-think our globalizing labours.
18
References
Agné, Hans. “A Dogma of Democratic Theory and Globalization: Why Politics Need not
Include Everyone it Affects.” European Journal of International Relations 2006; 12; 433
Barakawi, Tarak and Mark Laffey. “The Imperial Peace: Democracy, Force and
Globalization.” European Journal of International Relations 1999; 5; 403
Birch, Anthony H. Concepts & Theories of Modern Democracy. (2nd Edition) Florence,
KY, USA: Routledge, 1993.
Cole, Ken. “Globalization: Understanding Complexity” Progress in Development
Studies 2003; 3; 323
Dagger, Richard. “Understanding the General Will.” The Western Political Quarterly,
Vol. 34, No. 3, (Sep., 1981), pp. 359-371
Ellwood, Wayne. The No-Nonsense Guide to Globalization (2nd Edition). Toronto, CA:
New Internationalist Publications, 2006.
Farro, Antimo, L. “Actors, Conflicts and the Globalization Movement.” Current
Sociology, July 2004, Vol. 52(4): 633–647.
Ferguson, Marjorie. “The Mythology About Globalization.” European Journal of
Communication 1992; 7; 69.
Gills, Barry, K “Democratizing Globalization and Globalizing Democracy.” The
ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 2002; 581; 158
Goodhart, Michael. “Democracy, Globalization, and the Problem of the State.” Polity,
Vol. 33, No. 4, (Summer, 2001), pp. 527-546
Harvey, David. The Enigma of Capital: And the Crises of Capitalism. NC, USA:
Oxford University Press, 2010.
Hedley, R. Alan. Running out of Control : Dilemmas of Globalization. Bloomfield, CT,
USA: Kumarian Press, Incorporated, 2002.
Held, David. “Regulating Globalization? The Reinvention of Politics.” International
Sociology, June 2000; Vol. 15 (2): 394-408.
Hopper, Paul. Living with Globalization. Oxford, , GBR: Berg Publishers, 2006.
Lewandowski, Joseph, D. “Disembedded Democracy? Globalization and the ‘Third
Way’” European Journal of Social Theory 6(1): 115–131
19
Li, Quan & Rafael Reuveny. Economic Globalization and Democracy: An Empirical
Analysis British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 33, No. 1 (Jan., 2003), pp. 29-54.
Maus, Ingeborg. “From Nation-State to Global State, or the Decline of Democracy.”
Constellations Volume 13, No 4, 2006.
Munck, Ronaldo. “Globalization and Democracy: A New "Great Transformation"? The
ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 2002; 581; 10
Näsström, Sofia. “What Globalization Overshadows.” POLITICAL THEORY, Vol. 31
No. 6, December 2003 808-834
Nef, Jorge. “Globalization and the Crisis of Sovereignty, Legitimacy, and Democracy.”
LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES, Issue 127, Vol. 29 No. 6, November 2002 59-69
Perry, Richard Warren(Editor). Globalization under Construction : Governmentality,
Law, and Identity. Minneapolis, MN, USA: University of Minnesota Press, 2003.
Prindle, David F. Paradox of Democratic Capitalism : Politics and Economics in
American Thought. Baltimore, MD, USA: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006.
Putterman, Ethan. “Rousseau on Agenda-Setting and Majority Rule.” The American
Political Science Review, Vol. 97, No. 3, (Aug., 2003), pp. 459-469
Putzel, James. “Globalization, Liberalization, and Prospects for the State.” International
Political Science Review (2005), Vol. 26, No. 1, 5–16.
Radhakrishnan, R. “Globalization, Desire , and the Politics of Representation.”
Comparative Literature, Vol. 53, No. 4, (Autumn, 2001), pp. 315-332.
Rahman, Anisur. “Globalization: The Emerging Ideology in the Popular Protests and
Grassroots Action Research.” Action Research 2004; 2; 9
Reich, Robert, B. “How Capitalism is Killing Democracy.” Foreign Policy, September October, 2007.
Reis, Elisa, P. “The Lasting Marriage Between Nation and State Despite Globalization.”
International Political Science Review (2004); Vol. 25, No. 3, 251-257.
Sreenivasan, Gopal “What Is the General Will?” The Philosophical Review, Vol. 109,
No. 4, (Oct., 2000), pp. 545-581.
Reich, Robert, B. “How Capitalism is Killing Democracy.” Foreign Policy, September October, 2007.
20
Rousseau, J.J. The Social Contract. (Translated by G.D.H Cole) in the course materials
for Global Studies 652, Athabasca University, Canada.
Smith, Anthony, D. Nationalism and Modernism : A Critical Survey of Recent Theories
of Nations and Nationalism. London, UK: Routledge, 1998.
Tabb, William K. Economic Governance in the Age of Globalization. New York, NY,
USA: Columbia University Press, 2004.
Teune, Henry. “Global Democracy.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science 2002; 581; 22
Trachtenberg, Zev M. Making Citizens: Rousseau’s Political Theory of Culture.
London: Routledge, 1993.
21