on? Bradley argues that Globalisation has two defining features which distinguish it qualitatively from earlier international process of cultural, social, or economic activity.
             Firstly, globalisation involves greater interdependence and interconnectedness on a planetary scale. (Bradley, 2000, p15). In the world of economics this is where the phrase 'America sneezes and the world catches a cold' comes from. The Chernobyl disaster had consequences not just for the state where the problem arose but for the whole world. Years of festering discontent in the Middle East led to people flying planes into buildings on the other side of the world.
             Secondly, there is a process of de-localisation. Whereby greater interdependence and interconnectedness lessens the scope for economic, social, political, and cultural processes to be locally determined.
             This then, I will take as my definition of globalisation, growing interdependence and interconnectedness, which causes, a lessening of local autonomy over economic, cultural, political and social processes.
             At first glance, if this is what is actually happening, this definition would seem to support the arguments of those who argue that the power of the nation state is being eroded by Globalisation, as manifested through the growing dominance of MNC's , and would have us believe that, "The era of the nation state is over, that national level governance is ineffective in the face of globalised economic and social processes... from the 1970's onwards we have witnessed the creation of a truly global economy, one in which market forces are stronger than even the most powerful nation states" (Kidd et al, 1998, p396).
             There are two main and opposed schools of thought on this subject. Firstly, the neo-liberal point of view, which claims that nation states are losing power to over whelming market forces. Secondly, there is the Marxist point of view, ...