Disclaimer. Don't rely on these old notes in lieu of reading the literature, but they can jog your memory. As a grad student long ago, my peers and I collaborated to write and exchange summaries of political science research. I posted them to a wiki-style website. "Wikisum" is now dead but archived here. I cannot vouch for these notes' accuracy, nor can I say who wrote them.
Garrett. 1998. Global markets and national politics: Collision course or virtuous cycle?. International Organization 52 (autumn): 787-824.
MAIN ARGUMENT: Although globalization does impose some new constraints on government, international investors seem more concerned with government debt than with the size of government per se. Those who argue for government interventionism, therefore, need not argue for protectionism as well.
Garret explores the effects of three globalization mechanisms on domestic economic policy
The reason that governments have maintained control over their economies, according to Garret, is that they provide economically important public goods, including human capital, infrastructure, social stability, and support for the free market (by reducing inequality).
In addition, he finds that the best predictor of the size of government is not globalization pressures or the absence thereof, but the ideological orientation of those in power. Strong left-labor regimes consistently spend more, have higher taxes, and have tighter capital controls regardless of global pressures.
In thinking about these results, recall Katzenstein's argument (from research design) that small countries use a combination of openness and domestic compensation (the welfare state) in managing international economic pressures. Garrett is essentially arguing that as the world becomes more integrated big states will choose to become more like small European states.
Research on similar subjects