Route 1 globalisation multidimensional (economic/political/social/cultural) → question is not “does it end the state” but “how far does it loosen the state’s grip” → realists: erosion of sovereignty // liberals: capacity-building

Route 2 political globalisation erodes sovereignty despite the Westphalian principle → nation-state’s weight falls, other actors rise → domestic control becomes the real pressure point

economic pressure first (Nye → MNCs press governments, control over currency & foreign trade weakened) → authority sideways to society (Simmons → NGOs set agendas, confer legitimacy on policy) → power upward (Rodrik → post-sovereign, transnational governance fills regulatory voids)

not pure loss → same openness brings integration, technology transfer, better governance & rule of law → state gains capacity even while ceding autonomy (liberal read against the erosion thesis)

Route 1 transforms, does not abolish → decisions move upward (international bodies) + sideways (markets, civil society) → policy & welfare space shrinks, worst in developing countries

Route 2 double-edged: state neither fully sovereign as before nor obsolete → it survives by adapting → developing states most squeezed