Make a powerpoint report about The Relevance of the State amid Globalization.
The report should be bulleted only and should not write any kilometric sentences in the slides.

	The state is a distinctive political community with its own set of rules and practices and that is more or less separate from other communities. It has four elements: people, territory, government, and sovereignty. The first element of a state is a permanent population. This population does not refer to a nomadic people that move from one place to another in an indefinite time. This permanent presence in one location is strengthened by the second element of a state, a defined territory. A territory has clear boundaries. A territory is effectively controlled by the third element, government. The government regulates relations among its own people and with other states. This means that the state is a formally constituted sovereign political structure encompassing people, territory, and its institutions on the one hand, and maintaining its autonomy from other states on the other hand. 

	It is important to differentiate the idea of nation from state. Nation refers to a people rather than any kind of formal territorial boundaries or institutions. It is a collective identity grounded on a notion of shared history and culture. If we talk about the Philippines as a state, we may refer to the Philippine government, the Philippine territory, and its internal and external sovereignty. If we talk about the Philippines as a nation, we refer to our shared collective notion of democracy, our history, and our collective identity. In other words, the state is a political concept, while a nation is a cultural concept. States, through its formalized institutions, more or less reflect nations. This would allow states to have a certain people with their own collective identity. In turn, they should be allowed to form their own political state. This is the principle of national self-determination. 

	This brings us to the concept of the nation-state. It is a territorially bounded sovereign institution that governs individuals sharing a collective history, identity, and culture. In reality, it is difficult to think of any nation as having any shared national identity. The Philippines, although formally a state, has a variety of ethnic traditions. 

	A variety of arguments are made including that nation-states continue to be the major players on the global stage (Gilpin, 2001), that they "retain at least some power in the face of globalization" (Conley, 2002, pp. 378 - 399), that they vary greatly in "their efficacy in the face of globalization" (Mann, 2007, p. 472), and that the rumors of the demise of the nation-state are greatly exaggerated. 

	Beland (2008) argued that "the role of the state is enduring—and even increasing—in advanced industrial societies" (p. 48). He saw greater demands being placed on the state because of four major sources of collective insecurity: terrorism; economic globalization, leading to problems such as outsourcing and pressures toward downsizing, as well as the current economic crisis; threats to national identity due to immigration; and the spread of global diseases such as AIDs. Further, the state does not only respond to these threats, but may also exaggerate or create dangers, thereby making its citizens more insecure (Glassner, 2000). A good example is the U.S. and British governments' arguments prior to the 2003 war with Iraq that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) that posed a direct threat to the United States and United Kingdom. The United States even claimed that Iraq could kill millions by using offshore ships to lob canisters containing lethal chemical or biological material into American cities (Isikoff and Corn, 2006). The collective insecurity created by such outrageous claims helped foster public opinion in favor of invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam Hussein. 

	The other side of this argument in support of the nation-state is that global processes of various kinds are not as powerful as many believe. For example, global business pales in comparison to business within many countries. In addition, some question the porosity of the nation-state by pointing, for example, to the fact that migration to other countries has declined substantially since its heights in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Gilpin, 2001).

	A related point is that it would be a mistake simply "to see globalization as a threat to, a constraint on, the nation-state; it can also be an opportunity for the nation-state" (Conley, 2002, pp. 378-399). For example, the demands of globalization were used as bases to make the needed changes in Australian society, specifically allowing it to move away from protectionism and in the direction of neoliberalization, to transform state enterprises into private enterprises, and to streamline social welfare. With this, rhetoric of globalization, especially an exaggeration of it and its effects, was useful to those politicians who were hopeful of such changes.