Local Actors, Nation States, and Their Global Environment: Conceptualizing Successful Resistance to the Anti-Social Impacts of Globalization VERONICA DUJON * (Departmentof Sociology,Portland State University) ABSTRACT Nation-states arefaced with multiplecontradictions as they mediatethe insertion oftheir domestic economies intothe globaleconomy. Drawing on acase studyfrom the Caribbean country ofSt. Lucia, this paperexplores how local community resources may inuence the terms oftheir integrationin the globaleconomy. It is arguedthat socially embedded economic institutionsthat aretypically neglected in discussions ofeconomic developmentare in some ways bettersuited to the task ofin uencing the terms ofglobalization than state policy- making. Introduction The termsglobal economy, globalization and global environment are increasinglyused to referto howwe understandthe dynamicrelationships andlinkages (social,political, economic and environmental) between the developedand developing worlds. Yet the term“ globalization,” * Department ofSociology, Portland StateUniversity, P.O.Box 751,Portland OR 97207;email: [email protected]; phone: (503) 725-8503; fax: (503) 725-3957. Critical Sociology, Volume 28,issue 3 also availableonline Ó 2002Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden www.brill.nl 372 Dujon ² muchlike “ustainability”before it, can be extremely difcult to de ne. Notwithstanding,from a politicaleconomy perspective the discourseon globalizationas a fundamentalevolution in capitalist development rages on. 1 The roleof nation-states in protecting and enhancing the lives oftheir citizensis weighed against the evidence thatnation-states are no longer relevant (Hirstand Thompson 1999; Burbach and Robinson 1999; Weiss 1997;Panitch 1997; Korten 1995). Nation-states indeed are faced with multiplecontradictions as they attemptto negotiate between the demands oftheir domestic economies and the logicof the globaleconomy. When states fall shortthere ismuchinterest in the potentialfor social movements andhuman agency tohalt the perniciousconsequences of globalization (Hirstand Thompson 1999; Sassen 1998, 1996; Panitch 1997). What spaces,conditions and structures enhance suchpotential? And when such potentialdoes emerge whatconditions encourage its expansion? These questionsunderlie the basicthrust of this paper. Drawingon the experience ofthe small Caribbeanstate of St. Lucia, thiswork is a modestattempt conceptualizing successful resistance to the anti-socialimpacts of globalization.This work is speci cally focusedon the internaland external circumstances(historical, economic, cultural) which allownational actors in the agriculturalcommunity to determine the terms ofits integration into the globaleconomy. In sodoing, I engage the theoreticaldebate about the alleged demiseof the nation-statethrough a presentationof empirical evidence thatmaps out the dynamicrelationship betweencommunity, nation-state and the logicof economic globalization. In essence the paperargues that: (1) nation-states continue to play a signicant role in the directionof their domestic economies; and (2) that rolecan still befundamentally affected by the interestsof national actors even inthe faceof strongexternal/ globalpressures. Itis undeniable that globalization has heraldedmany positivegains for peopleworldwide. The revolutionin communication technology through electronicmeans has facilitatedprogressive and productive exchanges and collaborationbetween communities of peoplethat would not have occurred otherwise.There is a growinginternational community with membership acrossthe industrializedand Third Worlds that advocates for human rights,women’ s rightsand environmental issues.Internationally linked networkshave alsoformed around concern for the adverse economic, socialand cultural impacts of globalization. Nation-states, through the 1 SeeAndrew McGrew’s 1998article “Globalization:Conceptualizing a MovingTarget” for adiscussionon contemporary discourseon globalization and Jason W. Moore’ s 1997 reviewof G. Arrighi’s book“ The LongTwentieth Century: Money,Power and the Origins ofOurTimes” Verso 1994. Successful Resistance to Anti-Social Impactsof Globalization 373 ² nationalinstitution of citizenship, have hadthe responsibilityto protect the rightsof their citizens. How can these rightscontinue to be protected andguaranteed with the globalizationof economicrelations? Are states still upto the task? Is there aneed fora newrelationship or “ socialcontract” between local,regional, and state governments, on the onehand, and supra-nationalinstitutions, on the other? Reportsof the demiseof the nation-stateand the risingdominance oftransnational capital and corporations are extensive (Greider2001, 1997;Burbach and Robinson 1999; Robinson and Harris 1999; Korten 1995).Others reject this view andargue that the myth ofglobalization exaggerates the degreeof helplessness inthe faceof contemporary economicforces (Dicken 1998;Sassen 1998; Panitch 1997; Hirst and Thompson1996). These worksargue convincingly that re-organization ofstate institutions is signi cantly dominatedby capitalist interests. They alsopresent evidence thatsuch re-organization does not necessarily go unchallenged orunaffectedby other social actors. States continue to be sites ofstruggle,and the outcomeof thisstruggle, they argue,is notnecessarily predictable. Panitch’s work,which draws on an examinationof the roleof the state inthe contextof North American free tradeinitiatives, captures the overall thrustof this alternative conclusion.He makes acompellingargument thattoday’ s globalizationis “ authoredby states andis primarily about re-organizingrather than by-passingthem” (1997:85). Sassen arrives at a similarconclusion in her work.She arguesthat the wholeframework of internationallaw depends on the courtsof national systems andon systems ofarbitration,both national and international, that exist atthe willof states andrequire national institutions for the executionof theirdecisions (1998). Even inthe extreme cases ofstructural adjustment programs in which austerityprograms are imposed upon developing countries, Sassen argues suchpolicies also point up the participationof states infurthering the goals ofglobalization.These austerityprograms have tobe run through national governmentsand reprocessed as national policies. The globalis notsimply the non-national(Sassen 1996:107). Muchof the evidence marshaledin defense ofthe nationstate comes fromindustrialized and newly industrializedcountries. It isnot entirely clear,however, that a similarargument could be made for developing states thathave traditionallybeen forcedto rely ondependent models of development-conditionsunder which a nation’s degreesof freedom are constrainedby the extent ofdependenceon external tradeand investment (Dicken 1998). Thispaper explores one instance where local actors in a developing countrysuccessfully contested the termsof integration into the global 374 Dujon ² economy.The evidence comesfrom St. Lucia, a Caribbeancountry where the ruralsector successfully resisted a landprivatization scheme sponsored bythe UnitedStates Agency forInternational Development (USAID)and whichhad the initialsupport of the St.Lucian state. Rural communities wereable toaccomplish this in spite of the weightof neoliberal policy emanatingfrom USAID and internal support from the stateof St. Lucia. Like Panitch(1997), I arguethat the resultingrole of the statein the nal outcomewas determined by the struggleamong social forces located within the particularsocial formation. The particularcombination of historical, social and political circum- stances createa spacein which seemingly economicallymarginal small farmersare able to de ne asphereof operation that provides them fun- damentalsocial and economic bene ts. These conditionsalso support the abilityto resist land privatization advocated by the globallydominant ide- ologyof neoliberalism that has left somany destitute.The small farmers’ experience isgrounded in land ownership, which is directly linked tothe evolutionof communal land in the Caribbeanregion (Dujon 1997; Bar- row1992; Acosta and Casimir 1985; Besson 1979).This experience isthe embodimentof the strugglefor economic independence in the aftermath ofemancipation in 1838. It includes the insertionof small farmersinto the export-ledsector in the mid1900s (Dujon 2000) and the challenges of globalizationposed by the ratherdifferent economic circumstances at the turnof the twenty-rst century. The case ofSt. Lucia illustrates the potentialfor a communityto use alocally basedresource (in thiscase communalland and its associated institutions)to organize assets andlabor allocation in ways that bene t ruralpeople traditionally disenfranchised by economicchange. Many small andmarginal farmers rely onthe socialand economic advantages derived fromthe communalland institution to buffer themselves againstadverse economicimpacts. In the faceof the currentdeclining banana economy impelledby changingglobal market conditions, the decisionto retain communalland rather than convertingto private land turns out to be quite justied. It is theoreticallycritical to note that the abilityof the community toresist a potentiallydisastrous privatization scheme wasfacilitated by a resourcegrounded in the informaleconomy itself. Ownership of the means ofproductionand the strongline ofaccountabilitybetween peasant farmers andeither of the twomajor political parties, the UnitedWorkers’ Party andthe St.Lucia Labor Party, facilitated a successfulchallenge ofthe privatizationproject. The paperis