Globalization: an unravelling myth? Jonathan Luckhurst Instituto Tecnológico de Monterrey, Mexico Paper to be presented at the XXI Congress of Political Science of the International Political Science Association Santiago, Chile, July 2009 It is more than a decade since Paul Hirst and Grahame Thompson, amongst others, presented a comprehensive critique of the so-called ‘first wave’ globalization literature of the early 1990s. What continues to fascinate me is how this discourse, despite its myriad flaws, has continued to captivate politicians, scholars, economists, public commentators and general publics in the intervening years. My previous analysis of the impact of this discourse focused on the discursive practices, governmentality and power relations that have underpinned its success. However, in this paper, for the first time I argue that there are clear signs that the flaws of this discourse have been made so evident by recent events that politicians, scholars and publics will no longer be so easily blinded to its empirical and conceptual limitations. The signifier ‘globalization’ will not disappear overnight, but what it signifies is undergoing a dramatic transformation. No longer will ‘globalization’ indicate a necessity for deregulation, liberalization and privatization in the face of globalizing economic pressures that governments supposedly cannot control or influence. To the contrary, the broad and coordinated strategy by international bodies (most notably the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, the G7 and G20 nations), central banks and governments of many of the world’s leading countries to restore confidence in moribund financial institutions and faltering economies has dispelled one of the core myths of globalization discourse: the inevitable decline of the nation-state as the main actor in world affairs. This will not completely discourage advocates of this discourse from continuing to support its policy prescriptions, especially once the current crisis is over. Nevertheless, whilst imperfect market mechanisms and lack of transparency were blamed for the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s, in 2008 the markets themselves were problematized as incapable of self- regulation and requiring stronger [inter]governmental oversight, with more effective regulatory practices plus Keynesian-style economic intervention. Formerly-tarnished notions such as ‘nationalization’, ‘partial nationalization’ and ‘regulation’ have been restored to the mainstream political lexicon and policy practice even in Britain and the United States.