Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Globalization AND Politics
Globalization AND Politics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Globalization AND Politics
Do economic markets and state governments share an adversarial or symbiotic relationship? Scholars of International Political Economics have been at odds over what role, if any, the state should have in the International Economy. Despite such disagreements, most scholars can concur that IPE is ultimately concerned with the ways in which states shape the systems through which economic interactions are expressed, and conversely the results that economic interactions (including the power of collective markets and individuals acting both within and outside them) have upon political structures and outcomes. The relation between states and markets in the international scene, and whether, the relationship at home affects relationships abroad, is of great importance. One contemporary in particular Ian Bremmer has attempted to explain this relationship in light of the latest economic recession, and what impact the state should have in the future. In his book titled The End of the Free Market Bremmer believes that the Free Market Capitalism which has been a staple of American Economic prosperity is still the system that will provide for innovation and the free flow of ideas, information, people, money, goods, and services (Bremmer,183-184). Countries like China, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, and regions like Southeast Asia and Africa have all converted from command economies to a degree into state capitalist countries. These countries have all experienced the positives of the free market system, but are just now seeing the results of unregulated US domestic bubbles. Globalization, therefore, has created a system that requires government regulation of domestic products and services to ensure that a symbiotic relationship between governments cont...
... middle of paper ...
...elationships between states roar back the world will continue down the current recessionary path which quite possibly could lead to war on a truly global scale. The best way to ensure soverignty for all is with the free-market system which Adam Smith made so famous. As long as nation-states continue to exist (and it appears that they always will) their will be a temptation to revert back into protectionist ways. This I feel is only normal as it bolsters the national scene at home. If America and the rest of the world wants to continue to thrive and expand the pie much needed investment is necessary but maybe we should seek foreign investment help/advice when it is offered. One thing is for certain regulation domestically would go far in instilling the confidence foreign governments had in the United States to not only police the world but also police itself.
In this paper I will trace the roots of the nation-state and just how globalization affects it. Using examples such as the notable European Union and United Nations, I will then explain the differences between past nation-states and current sovereign states. By discussing the global economy, as well as the role the nation-state has in creating corporations for the global economy, I will prove that globalization fails to eradicate the nation-state solely because the ideals are too capitalistic. I will then examine how the nation-state still plays a vital role in a world rapidly moving towards one market with one nation and one set of rules.
When analyzing trade’s effect on state behavior, it is not the mere existence of trade between countries that should be central, rather, the nature of trade that is crucial. This distinction will be explored by studying the arguments of key economic and political thinkers of both the 18th and 20th centuries. The general nature of trade, the role of national government regarding trade and security, trade's capacity to befriend belligerent nations, and finally, the influence of international economic institutions will be explored. In an attempt to present a fairly broad range of sources, this study features the ideas of four influential authors from two time periods and continents: from the 18th Century, Adam Smith and Alexander Hamilton, and from the 20th Century, John Maynard Keynes and Secretary of State Cordell Hull.
The current issues that have been created by the market have trapped our political system in a never-ending cycle that has no solution but remains salient. There is constant argument as to the right way to handle the market, the appropriate regulatory measures, and what steps should be taken to protect those that fail to be competitive in the market. As the ideological spectrum splits on the issue and refuses to come to a meaningful compromise, it gets trapped in the policy cycle and in turn traps the cycle. Other issues fail to be handled as officials drag the market into every issue area and forum as a tool to direct and control the discussion. Charles Lindblom sees this as an issue that any society that allows the market to control government will face from the outset of his work.
In an interview with the Peterson Institute, Rodrik claims he is trying to create “a new narrative to shape the next stage of globalization, and to address the imbalance between the national scope of governments and the global nature of markets”, in many ways, this book does just that. As previously stated, Rodrik has diagnosed a “Political Trilemma of the World Economy”. The first point is that of Hyperglobalization, which is the ambitious agenda of “economic liberalization and deep integration” (17). In other words, it is a rapid and w...
Frieden, Jeffry A., David A. Lake, and Kenneth A. Schultz. World Politics. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2013. Print.
Strange, S. (1994), ‘Wake up Krasner! The world has changed’, Review of International Political Economy, Summer 1994, 1 (2), pp. 209-20, Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
From 1971 to 1980, the author worked as an ‘Economic Hitman’ (EHM) for the consulting firm Chas. T. Main, Inc. (MAIN). His role was “to cheat countries around the globe out of billions of dollars... to encourage world leaders to become part of a vast network that promotes U.S. commercial interests. In the end, those leaders become ensnared in a web of debt that ensures their loyalty” (p17). This was accomplished by the production of economic projections that would persuade the World Bank and other international organisations to lend money to these countries. After this money was spent on developing infrastructure in the countries in question – the contracts for which went to U.S. companies – they were left with large amounts of debts which they could not hope to repay. This in turn left these countries beholden to the United States’ economic and political interests, creating a ‘global empire’ controlled by “corporations, banks and governments” (Preface, p xiii). Perkins refers to this collusion of interests as the ‘corporatocracy’, and it is they who devised and carry out this strategy. The goal is not only to increase economic growth, both for the U.S. and the corporations themselves, but “to perpetuate and continually expand the system” (Preface, p xiii).
Gilpin, Robert. Global Political Economy: Understanding the International Economic Order. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. Print.
This essay will describe the characteristics of the modern nation-state, explain how the United States fits the criteria of and functions as a modern nation-state, discuss the European Union as a transnational entity, analyze how nation-states and transnational entities engage on foreign policy to achieve their interests, and the consequences of this interaction for international politics.
National economies are more connected today than ever before with nations focusing on their comparative advantages and a global economy has been created but because of this, the world’s economies have become increasingly interdependent and volatile. Oil is the backbone of the global economy, but oil is a quickly depleting resource and eventually government protection of oil resources will lead to the collapse of global trade. Globalization causes negative effects on the world’s economies, with increased interdependence leading to issues like Contagion. Governments are steadily becoming more involved in regulating their economies and protecting their own economies will hurt globalization. Government involvement in the economy makes globalization unsustainable.
Following the Great Recession, the world has been facing complex global transformations. Dani Rodrik’s “The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy” portrays the challenges of the implications that our current model of globalization relies upon. Rodrik’s work reveals both the implications and connections of the relationships between markets, the states, and globalization in the currently changing world. Throughout the book, Rodrik argues the validity of five key points: markets require regulatory institutions, such institutions take on a variety of forms, societies should orient their market-supporting institutions to their own unique needs, markets that are responsive to democracy can avoid institutional convergence, and a world that is responsive to democracy will not reach full globalization. This book has made me question the long term sustainability of the already evolving economic globalization process. Rodrik explains that the process of globalization must be managed so that the entire world can benefit.
Angola is one of those countries that is full of such examples. It is also full of contradictions and inefficiencies that dictate that more than often these interventions are only temporary on not fully abided by.
Realist perspective explains globalization in terms of the relative distribution of power (Nau 2007, 278). In their opinion, trade and economic activities thrives “only under favorable security conditions,” and those conditions rely on the relative distribution of power (Nau 2007, 279). They believe that alliances and hegemony are the two most affirmative security conditions. “’Free trade is more likely within than across political-military alliances; and …alliances have had a much stronger effect on trade in a bipolar than in to a multipolar world.’” (Nau 2007, 279) In other words, the fewer dominating states with power there are in the system, the stronger is the alliance and its effect on trade. In a multipolar world, countries cannot trust each other in trade because alliances are rarely permanent and therefore, countries might use the gains from trade to increase its military power and threaten to cause damage to the other country. Thus, realists argue that,
The structure of global economy is an evidently dependent structure, depending on several aspects of the government to power its economy and keep it running reliably. The cycle goes on between the government, firms, product markets, resource markets and finally households. Looking at the government, they provide public goods and services to the firms and households and welcome taxes from both aspects. Differently, they make payments to the resource markets, receiving resources in return, and provide prices for the product markets receiving good and services in return. Moving to the firms, they offer wages, interests, rents and profits to resource markets benefiting of their resources production in return and goods and services to product...
Brinkman, June E., and Richard L. Brinkman. "Corporate Power and the Globalization Process." International journal of social economics 29.9/10 (2002): 730-52. Print.