301
Arctic Yearbook 2013
What Does the Arctic Teach Us?
permanent threat of war was used as a means to legitimize ever more aggressive industrial
development.
But if the period until the end of the Cold War marked the heyday of the modern nation-state as an
industrial development agency of military nature, things have turned more difficult since: while it is
of course true that the end of the Cold War and the subsequent era of
globalization
has boosted
industrial development to unprecedented levels and expanded it to even the remotest parts of the
planet (thanks notably to the free movements of capital, goods and services), such globalization at
the same time creates unprecedented challenges to the very organizations that are nation-states
(Chang, 2003). Not only can (the Cold) War no longer serve as a means to legitimize the state‘s grip
on society, but moreover, the nation-state also becomes financially challenged as a result of
globalization. Indeed, capital has since become mobile and will move to the places where returns are
biggest. Consequently, nation-states, as organizations promoting industrial development, become
pitched against one another in the same way as firms are. Consequently, they must look out for new
sources of income, as well as new sources of legitimacy, as their legitimacy can no longer be
grounded on security, nor on security-based industrial development. This is something all nation-
states struggle with since the end of the Cold War.
Furthermore, and on top of the challenges posed by globalization, now comes the challenge of what
I call ―
diminishing returns
‖. While the era of industrial development (1850s to 1980s) and even the era
of globalization (1980s to 2000s) were still built on and made possible thanks to accessible and
affordable non-renewable (and renewable) resources – mainly fossil fuels, minerals and fossil fuel
based industrial agriculture –, this has substantially changed since the turn of the century. Indeed, in
the new era of diminishing returns fossil energy resources (especially oil), the most efficient form of
energy from an energetic point of view, has now peaked, along with other minerals (Deffreyes,
2012). In other words, ever more energy (and money) must be spent to obtain be it only the same
level of industrial development (Hall & Klitgaard, 2012). Not to mention the fact, that ever more
money must be spent (non-productively) on mitigating the negative consequences of industrial
development, for example in the case of climate change induced natural disasters. To recall, since the
Industrial Revolution, nation-states are industrial development agencies in the same way as
corporations. Like corporations, they depend upon natural resources, especially fossil fuels, for their
growth and financial well-being. But unlike corporations, nation-states, in addition, also have a
legitimacy problem. To recall, thanks to industrial development, economic growth and the ensuing
Welfare State they were able to legitimize themselves. Legitimacy has already become more difficult
for nation-states during the era of globalization, yet they have tried to legitimize themselves vis-à-vis
their own citizens by seeking to become or stay globally competitive (as opposed to fighting wars).
But in the era of diminishing returns legitimacy will become a real and probably insurmountable
challenge for them, exacerbated as it will be by structural financial problems. The Arctic will help us
see what this exactly means.
The Role of the Nation-State in the Arctic
As the exploration of the Arctic progresses, the
nation-state
gradually takes possession of it. This is
notably the case of Russia (Rowe, 2009), the United States (Alaska), Canada, Denmark (Greenland),