Discourses

The final issue to be addressed is the role of discourses in shaping political outcomes. For Hay (2004b), the real power of globalization lies not in its material ‘reality’ but in its discursive construction.

While Hay plausibly suggests that ideas about globalization play an important role in shaping political outcomes, his work also raises important questions (which Hay himself acknowledges) about how such discourses relate to the broader economic, political and cultural context in which they are situated. For, any full understanding of globalization needs to explore: the actual economic processes which constrain states; the discursive construc­tion of those constraints; and the way in such discourses are, in turn, shaped by the context in which they are constituted. To cite Heffernan (2002: 749), ideas ‘have to work with, rather than against, the grain of social, political and economic interests, within and without the state, and in line with the demands of the economy’.

Let us again use the UK as a case. As we have seen, the actual extent of globalization is limited, although the UK is more exposed to external economic pressures than other OECD countries. However, the Labour government argues very strongly that globalization means that there is no alternative but to pursue neo-liberal policies (Watson and Hay 2003; Hay and Smith 2005). So, the government is constrained not by the ‘reality’ of globalization, but by the dominant discourse of/about globalization.

All of this raises the obvious question: why does the Labour government pursue neo-liberal policies if the economic pressures to do so are much less pressing than some argue? If we work the various implications to this question through, then we see that the relationship(s) between realit(ies) and discourse(s) is very complex.

One might argue that New Labour simply do not know the truth. There may be some validity to this argument. As Hay (2002) rightly notes, actors do not possess perfect information about the context in which they find themselves but instead have to interpret that context - and their interpretations may be wrong. Yet, ideas must also have some resonance with people’s experi­ences if they are to be adopted (Marsh 1999). As we have noted, many countries are indeed more exposed to international pressures than they were previously. The concept of globalization may therefore be powerful precisely because it seems to capture ‘real’ processes. As Walsh (2000: 485) writes: ‘ideas reduce uncertainty about how the social world operates by providing decision makers with simplified models of reality’.

One might also posit that New Labour has pursued neo-liberal policies because they think that they are the best, using the globalization argument as a useful one to buttress their view. Here, of course, globali­zation becomes an opportunity, rather than a constraint (in the same way that, Europe can act as an opportunity, not just a constraint, espe­cially for the Conservatives). In particular, New Labour uses the globalization argument to suggest they have no alternative but to pursue neo-liberal economic policies, so they are not to blame for any cuts in welfare or increases in inequality. This has certainly been a useful tool for New Labour in reducing the extent and effectiveness of ‘Old Labour’ attacks on economic policy.

But, even if we take this line, it leads immediately to another question: why might New Labour think neo-liberal policies were the best? Here we might look at the role of the external economic context (Britain’s exposure to international markets is greater than elsewhere in Europe). In contrast, one might suggest that New Labour’s policy preferences are driven by political, especially electoral, considerations. So, they may pursue these policies to create an image of governing economic competence within an electoral and party institutional setting. That argument opens up other interesting lines: if governments are largely driven by winning elections, and if elections are decided around the issue of governing economic competence, then the crucial concern is what shapes images of governing economic competence? This takes us back to ‘real’ economic performance and how that is, in turn, discursively constructed.

This relates to a further point, for discourses are not just mediated by material factors but also by existing discourses.

In turn, ideas must also resonate with broader social and cultural discourses if they are to be successful. In Ireland, for example, ideas about globalization have fed into existing discourses of national identity (Smith 2005). Since the 1960s, Irish nationalism has: ‘proceeded from an assumption that the primary objective was to reap the benefits from full economic participation in the world economy’ (Breen, Hannan etal. 1990: 38). Globalization has been presented as a means through which Ireland could become an equal on the international stage, both economically and politically. As one Irish politician declared, globalization means: ‘we are all great powers now’ (O’Donnell 1997).

By this token, however, existing discourses do not necessarily facili­tate particular ideas but can also constrain them. In Australia, for example, the dominant discourse of globalization has been challenged by appeals to existing anti-immigration sentiment, articulated in terms of ‘One Nation’. This discursive struggle is occurring within the context of broader social and political changes, such as the challenging of white settler culture and the championing of aboriginal rights. As Johnson (2000: 146) writes: ‘Issues of gender, sexuality, race and ethnicity are challenging older power relations and conceptions of liberal citizenship... Key economic issues include the changing relationships between state and economy in Australian discourse associated with the development of neo-liberal ideology’. This contestation may be a world­wide phenomenon - highlighted by the truly international nature of the anti-globalization movement. Indeed, even in countries where globaliza­tion discourse has come to dominate it is contested. In Ireland, for example, the electorate’s rejection of the Nice Treaty on EU enlarge­ment was seen, in part, to reflect anti-globalization sentiment and a growing sense of discontent with the dominant policy paradigm (Irish Times, 9 June 2001). Once again, this highlights the highly complex and contingent way in which globalization discourse is used.