Social Europe

  • EU Forward Project
  • YouTube
  • Podcast
  • Books
  • Newsletter
  • Membership

The Left-Sovereigntist Fantasy: A Response To William Mitchell And Thomas Fazi

Andrew Watt 7th November 2017

Andrew Watt round

Andrew Watt

William Mitchell and Thomas Fazi (WM/TF) have written a piece that – under the presumptuous title of Everything You Know About Neoliberalism Is Wrong – offers a critique of the idea that nation states need to pool sovereignty in order to enact progressive policies and makes a plea for a “progressive emancipatory vision of national sovereignty”.  It has attracted some favourable attention, not least from colleagues at Eurointelligence. I consider that unfortunate, for the analysis fails, in my view, in both goals. It does not convincingly discredit the view that pooling sovereignty is a sensible response to the constraints imposed by globalisation. Nor does it make the case for a specifically left-wing strategy of enhanced national sovereignty, traditionally the mantra of the hard right, that might endear it to progressive politicians and academics.

The article alone would not necessitate a response: I am well aware that textual analyses do not make racy reading. But given the increasing hold of such ideas on parts of the European Left – some elements of which are taking positions indistinguishable from the extreme right – while social democracy is visibly searching for new ideas, the arguments made are important and a critical analysis is in order.

The piece starts with a statement of what the authors see as the “conventional wisdom” (to be debunked), namely that globalisation undermines national sovereignty and therefore “our only hope of achieving any meaningful change is for countries to ‘pool’ their sovereignty together and transfer it to supranational institutions (such as the European Union) that are large and powerful enough to have their voices heard, thus regaining at the supranational level the sovereignty that has been lost at the national level”. That is a clear and accurate statement. What, according to WM/TF, is wrong with it?

In running through WM/TF’s counter-arguments, we will need to check two things. One is whether the claims made are – more or less – true in themselves. The other is whether they constitute evidence against the claim that pooling sovereignty is a not a way to promote progressive politics and should be replaced by what I will call here left sovereigntism. To be effective counter-arguments must meet both tests.

Debunking the debunkers

The first argument adduced by the authors is that the nation-state as measured by its spending share in the economy has not withered away in the face of neoliberalism. This is factually true; indeed I have pointed it out myself (see here; the context, though, was an argument specifically about public spending). However, the fact that state spending in the economy has remained constant or even increased does not in any way prove that (nation) state capacity to deliver “progressive” policy goals has not been eroded. It says nothing about other regulatory matters, nor about the sources of financing. Taking up the latter issue, there is clear evidence that mobile capital and higher earners have been able to reduce their tax burden at the expense of (immobile) labour. And you don’t need to take my word on that because WM/TF say the same thing later in their essay.

Their second argument is that the state at national level, far from withering away, has intervened extensively and permanently to deregulate, liberalise and engage in regressive redistribution. This is (if a little one-sided) also broadly factually correct. Yet far from being a counter-argument, it is perfectly compatible with the view that the authors are trying to disabuse readers of: globalisation pressures nation states into becoming willing servants of mobile capital, pandering to its real or perceived needs and destroying the social acquis of an earlier generation.

More promisingly, WM/TF then announce their intention to confront the idea that national policy follows the “diktats of global capital” by looking at the evidence. Unfortunately they frame the discussion by asking whether “national sovereignty has truly reached the end of its days”. That is, of course, an absurdly exaggerated “straw-man”: globalization can materially constrain sovereignty, justifying pooling it in structures like the EU, without destroying it entirely.  Worse, they do not then present evidence at all, but rather offer an interpretation of Rodriks’s well-known impossibility theorem: you can only choose two out of three from globalization, national democracy and national sovereignty. In particular they cite his view that globalization is incomplete and leaves national policy-making space. Again this is correct but it is only a counter argument to the extreme view (straw man) that there is no space. It has no bearing on the issue of pooling vs sovereigntism.

The examples the authors give are also revealing. They point for instance to a high correlation between national saving and investment rates. What this means is that states cannot normally run large and persistent current account surpluses and (especially) deficits. In other words it is a sign of a global constraint on national policymaking; see here  p.102ff for some evidence). If, as seems plausible, it is more binding on deficit than surplus countries this imparts a deflationary bias to national policymaking to which sovereignty pooling would be an appropriate, welfare-enhancing response. Secondly, in their search of an argument for limits to globalization, WM/FZ draw attention to the severe restrictions on the freedom of movement of labour, compared to capital. However, it is precisely the leverage imbalance implied by this mobility differential – put starkly: capital has an exit option, labour does not – that gives rise to the view that progressive economic and social policies in small open economies are constrained in an international context and that pooling is a necessary step to regain policy-making traction.

The next argument is about what the authors call “depoliticisation”, which means things like creating independent central banks, applying fiscal rules and delegating responsibilities to “super-state bureaucracies like the EU”. Much could be said about the former, more technical issues (the debate on independent central banks, for instance, needs to be conducted in a much more nuanced way). Suffice it to say in this context that the point made earlier applies here too: “depoliticisation” is perfectly compatible with a view that it has been driven by external constraints and is therefore not a convincing counter-argument.

My country first

Moreover, the authors start at this point, if not earlier, to get entangled in hard-to-resolve contradictions. Depoliticisation, we are told, is a strategy pursued by national “elites” (seemingly untrammeled by national democracies). Somehow WM/TF turn this into an argument for “embracing (once again) a progressive emancipatory vision of national sovereignty”.  Quite how this Damascene-like conversion by national elites, or a sudden re-imposition of people-power that had been oddly absent to date, will come about remains a mystery; possibly the lack of an argument is intended as an incentive to read the authors’ book. What are the electoral prospects of those, like Melenchon in France, pursuing a left sovereigntist line? How likely is Brexit, which the authors describe as a “unique opportunity”, to deliver a rosy socialist rather than a cold-hearted neoliberal outcome (if it actually happens)?

As far as the critique of the EU is concerned, it is certainly true that it is at present far from meeting the hopes of those who see pooling sovereignty as the solution to the pressures of globalization. Unfortunately, some neoliberal – I don’t like the word but I will adopt it as shorthand here – precepts were embedded in the economic governance of the EU and Euro and are hard to change. WM/FT’s EU critique is very substantially exaggerated, however. The EU is not an undemocratic liberalisation steamroller as the authors imply: I won’t dwell on this point, see here. More fundamentally, though, and asking the reader’s indulgence for the unavoidable repetition, the weaknesses of real-world sovereignty pooling in the EU do not constitute an effective argument against the overall pooling-sovereignty argument and strategy, nor one for the alleged superiority of nationalist approaches. The need for EU and EMU reform is disputed by hardly anyone. A reform process is underway with an uncertain outcome. A strong case can be made for progressive forces to engage in that debate. I would argue that it is the persistence of intergovernmentalist structures (the fiscal compact being a case in point) that is holding the EU back and making it a more effective force to channel unwanted repercussions of globalization.

This is all the more true given the obvious weaknesses of the my-nation-state-first strategy. I assume because they feel uncomfortable about the proximity of their views with some tenets of the nationalist right, the authors felt obliged to end their piece with a call for, yes, European cooperation. Each country maximizes the welfare of its own citizens (the nasty national elites having been suddenly cowed), and this then leads to “multilateral cooperation between sovereign states”. Quite what the basis for such cooperation should be is left unclear. Maybe something like the WTO in which each state only signs up to what it can accept?

Whatever design is envisaged, the fault with this my-country-first strategy ought to be obvious to anyone with even a faint familiarity with economics and history. Many policies that are welfare enhancing at national level impose costs on neighbouring countries. How can a decentralized system of multilateral relations between sovereign states prevent them externalizing costs in this way? How can the bullying of smaller by larger, more powerful countries be tamed? (Yes, this also occurs within the EU, but supranational structures offer a partial corrective.) How long before such conflicts lead to the threatened use of force and, horror of horrors, war on European soil once more? Are the authors really so blind as to the lessons of history when European countries engage as sovereign nation states without a (partially) supranational framework?!

To sum up, William Mitchell and Thomas Fazi have failed in their attempt to shoot down the view that globalisation (whatever its other benefits) constrains national policy and that a progressive politics therefore requires sovereignty pooling. They present no clear and compelling case why nation states, which they themselves see as agents of neoliberalism, bullied by domestic elites and afflicted by depoliticisation, will experience a Damascene conversion leading to democratic socialism. They share the belief of neoliberal Brexiteers and other right-wing populists that, freed from the shackles of Brussels, they will be able to engage in social engineering according to their own proclivities. Take back control! The fact that both sides believe the same thing, but have more or less diametrically opposing visions of what is to be done with the newfound national sovereignty reveals the belief as the fantasy that it is.

One of the authors, William Mitchell, has written a response to this critique.

The post originally appeared on the author’s blog.

Andrew Watt
Andrew Watt

Andrew Watt is general director of the European Trade Union Institute.

Harvard University Press Advertisement

Social Europe Ad - Promoting European social policies

We need your help.

Support Social Europe for less than €5 per month and help keep our content freely accessible to everyone. Your support empowers independent publishing and drives the conversations that matter. Thank you very much!

Social Europe Membership

Click here to become a member

Most Recent Articles

u4219834664e04a 8a1e 4ee0 a6f9 bbc30a79d0b1 2 Closing the Chasm: Central and Eastern Europe’s Continued Minimum Wage ClimbCarlos Vacas-Soriano and Christine Aumayr-Pintar
u421983467f bb39 37d5862ca0d5 0 Ending Britain’s “Brief Encounter” with BrexitStefan Stern
u421983485 2 The Future of American Soft PowerJoseph S. Nye
u4219834676d582029 038f 486a 8c2b fe32db91c9b0 2 Trump Can’t Kill the Boom: Why the US Economy Will Roar Despite HimNouriel Roubini
u42198346fb0de2b847 0 How the Billionaire Boom Is Fueling Inequality—and Threatening DemocracyFernanda Balata and Sebastian Mang

Most Popular Articles

startupsgovernment e1744799195663 Governments Are Not StartupsMariana Mazzucato
u421986cbef 2549 4e0c b6c4 b5bb01362b52 0 American SuicideJoschka Fischer
u42198346769d6584 1580 41fe 8c7d 3b9398aa5ec5 1 Why Trump Keeps Winning: The Truth No One AdmitsBo Rothstein
u421983467 a350a084 b098 4970 9834 739dc11b73a5 1 America Is About to Become the Next BrexitJ Bradford DeLong
u4219834676ba1b3a2 b4e1 4c79 960b 6770c60533fa 1 The End of the ‘West’ and Europe’s FutureGuillaume Duval
u421983462e c2ec 4dd2 90a4 b9cfb6856465 1 The Transatlantic Alliance Is Dying—What Comes Next for Europe?Frank Hoffer
u421983467 2a24 4c75 9482 03c99ea44770 3 Trump’s Trade War Tears North America Apart – Could Canada and Mexico Turn to Europe?Malcolm Fairbrother
u4219834676e2a479 85e9 435a bf3f 59c90bfe6225 3 Why Good Business Leaders Tune Out the Trump Noise and Stay FocusedStefan Stern
u42198346 4ba7 b898 27a9d72779f7 1 Confronting the Pandemic’s Toxic Political LegacyJan-Werner Müller
u4219834676574c9 df78 4d38 939b 929d7aea0c20 2 The End of Progess? The Dire Consequences of Trump’s ReturnJoseph Stiglitz

KU Leuven advertisement

The Politics of Unpaid Work

This new book published by Oxford University Press presents the findings of the multiannual ERC research project “Researching Precariousness Across the Paid/Unpaid Work Continuum”,
led by Valeria Pulignano (KU Leuven), which are very important for the prospects of a more equal Europe.

Unpaid labour is no longer limited to the home or volunteer work. It infiltrates paid jobs, eroding rights and deepening inequality. From freelancers’ extra hours to care workers’ unpaid duties, it sustains precarity and fuels inequity. This book exposes the hidden forces behind unpaid labour and calls for systemic change to confront this pressing issue.

DOWNLOAD HERE FOR FREE

ETUI advertisement

HESA Magazine Cover

What kind of impact is artificial intelligence (AI) having, or likely to have, on the way we work and the conditions we work under? Discover the latest issue of HesaMag, the ETUI’s health and safety magazine, which considers this question from many angles.

DOWNLOAD HERE

Eurofound advertisement

Ageing workforce
How are minimum wage levels changing in Europe?

In a new Eurofound Talks podcast episode, host Mary McCaughey speaks with Eurofound expert Carlos Vacas Soriano about recent changes to minimum wages in Europe and their implications.

Listeners can delve into the intricacies of Europe's minimum wage dynamics and the driving factors behind these shifts. The conversation also highlights the broader effects of minimum wage changes on income inequality and gender equality.

Listen to the episode for free. Also make sure to subscribe to Eurofound Talks so you don’t miss an episode!

LISTEN NOW

Foundation for European Progressive Studies Advertisement

Spring Issues

The Spring issue of The Progressive Post is out!


Since President Trump’s inauguration, the US – hitherto the cornerstone of Western security – is destabilising the world order it helped to build. The US security umbrella is apparently closing on Europe, Ukraine finds itself less and less protected, and the traditional defender of free trade is now shutting the door to foreign goods, sending stock markets on a rollercoaster. How will the European Union respond to this dramatic landscape change? .


Among this issue’s highlights, we discuss European defence strategies, assess how the US president's recent announcements will impact international trade and explore the risks  and opportunities that algorithms pose for workers.


READ THE MAGAZINE

Hans Böckler Stiftung Advertisement

WSI Report

WSI Minimum Wage Report 2025

The trend towards significant nominal minimum wage increases is continuing this year. In view of falling inflation rates, this translates into a sizeable increase in purchasing power for minimum wage earners in most European countries. The background to this is the implementation of the European Minimum Wage Directive, which has led to a reorientation of minimum wage policy in many countries and is thus boosting the dynamics of minimum wages. Most EU countries are now following the reference values for adequate minimum wages enshrined in the directive, which are 60% of the median wage or 50 % of the average wage. However, for Germany, a structural increase is still necessary to make progress towards an adequate minimum wage.

DOWNLOAD HERE

Social Europe

Our Mission

Team

Article Submission

Advertisements

Membership

Social Europe Archives

Themes Archive

Politics Archive

Economy Archive

Society Archive

Ecology Archive

Miscellaneous

RSS Feed

Legal Disclosure

Privacy Policy

Copyright

Social Europe ISSN 2628-7641