Similarly, Cerny argued that increasing internationalisation has brought about a shift from the welfare state to the ‘competition state’: The competing logics of collective organisation and the promotion of capitalist development are shifting the focus of ‘state intervention’ from forms which ‘decommodify’ those activities pursued by the state
(which organise essentially domestic socio-economic activities along non-market lines) to those which ‘commodify’ or ‘marketise’ both state economic activities and the other elements of state structure too(Cerny, 1990, p. 53, emphasis in original). The state is thus becoming ‘a commodifying agent’ rather than a ‘decommodifying agent’, a return to the role it played in the emergence of capitalism in the post-feudal period (Cerny, 1990, p. 230). The dividing line between public and private is thus being ‘eroded’, and yet ‘paradoxically, the total amount of
state intervention will tend to increase, for the state will be enmeshed in the promotion, support, and maintenance of an ever-widening range of social and economic activities’. Globalisation and competitiveness also feature in practical policy arguments, advanced by the likes of Robert Reich (Bill Clinton’s labour secretary) which stress that globalisation forces the workers of each nation to compete against each other (Reich, 1991). Competitiveness no longer depends on the success of nationally owned corporations (which have outgrown their national bases), but on the value added by workers within states. Globally mobile firms seek not only cheap labour, but depending on the product) skilled labour (which commands a higher price). Equipping workers with the skills to compete in the global marketplace is therefore the main task of governments. It is only
through education, and the application of new technology which such education allows for, that the value added by routine workers can be enhanced, and higher-paying investment in more sophisticated types of production can be attracted. Any full account of significant changes in welfare state arrangements in advanced capitalist economies must take account of change across a range of different states.
同样，切尼说，日益国际化带来了从福利国家的竞争状态的转变：竞争逻辑的集体组织和资本主义发展的促进把关注的“国家干预”的形式，‘decommodify‘这些活动由国家推行
（这是国内社会经济活动的组织以及非市场线）的那些“商品化”或“marketise”国家的经济活动和国家结构的其他元素（切尔尼，1990，p. 53，重点在原件）。国家成为“商品化剂”而不是“decommodifying剂”，返回到它在后封建时代的资本主义产生的作用（切尔尼，1990，p. 230）。公共和私人之间的界线被“侵蚀”，然而，“奇怪的是，总金额
政府干预往往会增加，因为国家将沉浸在推广，支持，和一个更大的社会和经济活动的范围内维护”。全球化和竞争力的特征也在实际政策的争论，罗伯特帝国的喜欢先进（比尔克林顿的劳工部长强调，全球化的力量），每个国家的工人互相竞争（德国，1991）。竞争力不再依赖于国有企业的成功（这已经超越了他们的国家基地），但在增值的工人在美国。全球移动公司追求的不仅仅是廉价劳动力，而是取决于产品）熟练劳动力（这命令一个更高的价格）。装配工人的技能在全球市场的竞争，因此，政府的主要任务。这是唯一的
通过教育，这种教育和新技术的应用，可以通过常规的工人，增加值可提高，高支付的更复杂的生产类型的投资可以吸引。任何充分考虑在先进的资本主义经济福利国家安排的重大变化必须在一个范围内的不同的状态更改帐户。
