Globalization versus the state : false antinomy or logical fallacy? : a response to Clyde W. Barrow and Michelle Keck

This article provides a critical response to Clyde W. Barrow and Michelle Keck's recently published essay in Studies in Political Economy 98-2. First, I find little empirical evidence for their claim that a "false antinomy" separates globalization theory and state theory in leading Global Studies (GS) literature. Quite to the contrary, GS scholars have appreciatively engaged with state theory and also offered criticisms, especially on account of the methodological nationalism underlying much of this literature. Second, this article disputes the way Barrow and Keck characterize my explanation of globalization as a deterministic and metaphysical teleology.