You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 12 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
This lesson examines how globalisation is eroding, transforming and complicating state sovereignty — the foundational principle of the international system. You will explore how transnational corporations, supranational organisations, economic interdependence and cultural globalisation all challenge the traditional Westphalian model of the sovereign nation state. This lesson addresses the Edexcel Enquiry Question: "What is the relationship between globalisation and sovereignty?"
At the heart of Topic 8B is a fundamental tension: globalisation requires openness, but sovereignty requires control. States that participate in the global economy must open their borders to trade, investment, information and — to varying degrees — people. But in doing so, they cede aspects of the sovereignty that defines them as states.
This is the sovereignty paradox: to benefit from globalisation, states must surrender some of the very sovereignty that globalisation is supposed to protect. A state that withdraws from the global system to preserve its sovereignty (like North Korea) pays an enormous economic and social cost. A state that fully embraces globalisation (like Singapore) gains wealth but becomes deeply vulnerable to external forces it cannot control.
Exam Tip: The sovereignty paradox is one of the most powerful analytical tools in Topic 8B. Use it in essays to frame the tension between the benefits of global integration and the costs to national sovereignty. The best answers show that sovereignty and globalisation are not simply opposed but exist in a dynamic, trade-off relationship.
Transnational corporations (TNCs) are among the most powerful actors in the global economy, and their influence often exceeds that of the states in which they operate.
Tax avoidance and profit shifting: TNCs use complex corporate structures to minimise their tax obligations, depriving states of revenue. The OECD estimates that $100–240 billion in tax revenue is lost annually through base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS). Apple was ordered by the EU to pay €13 billion in back taxes to Ireland in 2016 (though Ireland initially appealed, arguing it had not offered illegal state aid).
Regulatory arbitrage: TNCs can threaten to relocate if a state imposes regulations they dislike — higher minimum wages, stricter environmental standards, tougher labour laws. This gives TNCs leverage over sovereign states, particularly smaller and lower-income ones.
Investment conditionality: TNCs negotiate tax breaks, subsidies and regulatory exemptions as conditions for investing. When Amazon sought a location for its second US headquarters (HQ2) in 2018, it received bids from 238 cities and regions, many offering billions in tax incentives. This demonstrates how TNCs can play states against each other.
Supply chain control: TNCs control global supply chains that link producers in developing countries to consumers in developed countries. A Bangladeshi garment factory's survival depends on orders from TNCs like H&M or Primark, giving those corporations enormous power over wages, conditions and the Bangladeshi economy.
| TNC | Revenue (2023, $bn) | Comparison | Sovereignty Challenge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Walmart | 648 | > GDP of Belgium ($582bn) | Dominates retail employment; shapes labour standards |
| Saudi Aramco | 535 | > GDP of Norway ($483bn) | State-owned but shapes global oil prices and energy policy |
| Apple | 383 | > GDP of Denmark ($395bn) | Tax avoidance; EU vs Ireland dispute; supply chain power |
| Amazon | 575 | > GDP of Poland ($688bn approaching) | City bidding wars; warehouse labour practices; data control |
| Shell | 316 | > GDP of Hong Kong ($360bn) | Environmental lobbying; influence over climate policy |
Supranational organisations are institutions to which member states delegate authority that goes beyond inter-governmental cooperation. The most significant example is the European Union, but others include the WTO, ICC, and IMF/World Bank.
The EU is the most advanced example of states pooling sovereignty — voluntarily transferring decision-making authority to common institutions. EU members have ceded sovereignty in several key areas:
Exam Tip: The EU is the single most important case study for the sovereignty-globalisation relationship. Be prepared to argue both sides: the EU delivers enormous economic benefits (the single market is worth an estimated €8.5 trillion in combined GDP), but it does so at the cost of individual state sovereignty. Brexit is the ultimate case study of a state deciding the sovereignty cost was too high.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 12 lessons in this course.