'Economic globalization means the end of the nation-state'. Discuss. "Where states were once the masters of markets, now it is markets which [...] are the masters over the governments of states." (Strange 1996:4) Is Westphalia's nation-state a 'West-failure'? Has the inexorable marching juggernaut of economic globalisation turned nation-states into "the victims of the market economy"? (Strange 2003:133) Does "integration of national economies into one single global market economy" (Strange 2003:133) pose a "serious threat to the power and autonomy of the state [...] an end to the sovereign state as we know it"? (Sorensen 2006:190) Certainly the case for the end of the nation-state must be considered. It may be possible to criticise this stance on the grounds that the extent of globalisation has been overstated, and empirical evidence may suggest that the nation-state still has an important role, though it is undergoing transformation, and in some respects it has even been strengthened by economic globalisation. As Sorensen (2006:191) puts it, "we know that the old model of a territoriality well-defined national state as of the mid-twentieth century doesn't hold up"; focussing primarily on economic issues, the task at hand is to uncover what the nation-state's role is in the wake of economic globalisation. Few would seriously deny the physical existence of states; rather, Mann (1997:473) summarises the general argument for the decline of the state as follows: "[c]apitalism, now become global, transnational, post-industrial, 'informational', consumerist, neoliberal and 'restructured', is undermining the nation-state -- its macroeconomic planning, its collectivist welfare