Globalisation,Hegemony and Passive Revolution

Across the social sciences the last decade has witnessed a proliferating interest in the relationship between the state and globalisation. By the early 1990s a range of writers working within what we label a structuralist approach asserted that globalisation is, if not challenging the viability of the sovereign state, then at least forcing it to adapt its policies to conform to the new global reality‐being 'hollowed out', as the phrase had it. The pendulum then swung the other way when an 'agent-centric' backlash emerged, insisting that states have what we call agential power, such that they can mitigate and even shape global structures. In this article we build upon an emergent third way, or 'structurationist' perspective, between these two antinomies, in which we synthesise structuralist and agent-centric theory. We begin in Part I by taking stock of the central issues in the state/globalisation debate and examine the various structuralistand agent-centric approaches, while Part II sketches the theoreticaloutlines of a structurationis t approach and conceptualises what we call the spatial promiscuity of the state. In Part III we apply this approach to the case of Singapore. We choose Singapore only because it provides an excellent litmus test for critically appraising the various positions on globalisation, including our own, not least because Singapore is a small state that has perhaps the most globalised economy in the world.