What takes the place of the nation-state?

The nation-state as a primary locus of power in the world is a paradigm that dates back only a few hundred years. Could that model be replaced in our lifetimes by something different?

Over the long span of human history (and pre-history), the accumulation and projection of power have taken many forms. Nation-states have been the dominant pattern of sovereign political organization for only about the last two or three centuries. Prior to that, monarchies and feudalism prevailed.

Although we are all accustomed to the nation-state, there is nothing magical about it. If another form of organization and governance better fits changing times, then something else might well become the new primary model for most if not all of the world.




In a recently concluded poll, we asked IEET readers: “Which country will be most powerful in 2050?”

Although China was the #1 answer by a wide margin, a significant number of respondents said they do not expect any nation-state to be dominant 40 years from now.

Just over 10% picked the UN (United Nations), and another 22 people (about 7% of all voters) provided answers ranging from global governance to corporations to A.I. singletons.

As one example of the thinking behind this point, here is something that Chris Smedley, a technology consultant from Toronto, Canada, posted on my Facebook page in a discussion on the topic (reprinted by permission):

Countries may not exist as viable entities in 2050. Countries are local in their scope and suboptimal in managing change…generally ineffective hangovers.

By 2050 we will be more global in all of our interactions. Geographic boundaries will seem pointless. Political beliefs and ideologies will not be managed by a small number of people on behalf of the masses.

Social collectivism using electronic media and global interconnections will act to create dynamic groups that share common interests and objectives. This is the time that global social communication is providing the foundation to change the way people communicate, share viewpoints, manage themselves, work with others, and effect change.

One can only hope that we get to a global “government” for the global issues and have local government for issues that are local. Any organization that fits in between these two extremes will become increasingly obsolete.

Or perhaps I am too hopeful that the next 40 years of exponential growth will have a profound and transformative effect on the way that people act collectively.

What do you think? Is Chris right?

We’ve just posted a new poll for IEET readers asking your opinion on what might replace the nation-state as a primary locus of power during this century. Options you can choose from are:

• City-states - If nations recede in power, perhaps strong municipalities will replace them.

• Multipolar regional blocs - Such as the EU, ASEAN, etc.

• Global government - Either the UN or something that supersedes it.

• A.I. singleton - Friendly or perhaps not.

• Emergent social media - Imagine Facebook or Google Buzz on steroids.

• Corporations - Assuming we’re not there already.

• Anarchy / individualism - If this is your answer, I’d like to hear in the comments how you would see it taking place.

• Nation-states will continue to rule - Forty years is a long time, but maybe not long enough to dislodge the nation-state as primary sovereign.

And if you have another idea, feel free to write it in under the “Other” category.

Thanks for your participation!