The purpose of this essay is to examine the similarities and differences between the liberal, Marxist and neorealist approaches to globalisation theory. To coherently present the ways in which these approaches compliment and combine, this essay will focus on four points of discussion. Firstly, economic factors of globalisation in relation to liberal, marxist and neorealist approaches will be outlined and debated. In the second part, the role of the state from each perspective shall be examined. Thirdly, the way that issues of international relations are addressed will be discussed. Finally, the Eurocentric nature of these approaches will be presented. I shall attempt to maintain that although there are differences regarding the perceptions …show more content…
Both Marxist and liberal thinkers conclude that globalisation has made the state an institution which allows capitalism to flourish, whereas neorealists argue that the state is autonomous of globalisation. They all, however, once again subscribe to the fundamental realist principle of self-interest. The spread of capitalist ideology through globalisation is seen as a positive development by liberals who advocate that this has increased migration. John Kenneth Galbraith articulated, “migration is the oldest action against poverty… It is good for the country to which they go; it helps break the equilibrium of poverty in the country from which they come.” This is in keeping with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states “everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and return to his own country.” The free movement of people is needed in order to boost their economy, in addition the state must also be willing to allow emigration in order to break the equilibrium of poverty. Therefore, the spread of capitalist ideas is good because it benefits world economy, making for stronger interdependence between states, thus increasing security. The Marxist approach to the role of the state is different, but the underlying principles remain the same as liberal thought. Marxists argue that the superstructure exists to maintain the power of the dominant economic class over the subordinate class and that the state …show more content…
Like neorealism, liberalism regards the international as an anarchic realm, although liberalism seeks to project values of order, liberty, and justice. Cobden suggests war is unnecessary because globalisation provides free trade, which itself creates a more peaceful world by bringing mutual gains to all. Thus globalisation has established peace as, post-WW1, peace is not a natural condition but one that must be constructed and requires ‘consciously devised machinery’. Liberals think the best way to secure this peace is interdependence. Woodrow Wilson thought creating the ‘League of Nations’ would preserve the coming peace and regulate international anarchy. ‘Collective security’ is part of the League 's system which called for the neorealist principle of self-determination of all nations. This required nations to act, if necessary, against states they considered friendly, and in a way that might endanger their national interests, to support states for which they had no moral affinity. A difference between the two theories is apparent when looking at the distribution of capabilities. Neorealists assess that there are three possible systems defined by the number of great powers within the international system; a unipolar system containing only one great power; a bipolar system containing two great powers, and a multipolar system containing more than two great powers. Neorealists conclude that a bipolar system is more
This economic study will define the dilution and variability of Marxist and Neo-Marxist Theory in the post-WWII era. The slow dilution of Marxist theory as a 19th century economic concept defines the rise of capitalism and the neoliberal ideology that has permeated the latter half of the 20th century. The fall of communism in the late 1980s reveals the bankruptcy of communism as a state ideology in the U.S.S.R., especially after the Unite States and other first world nations triumphed through the neoliberal capitalist ideology of the 1990s and into the 21st century. More so, the dilution of Marxism also occurs in the increasing cultural and social abstractions of Marxist ideology that stray from the objective “materialism” of traditional Marxist analysis, which shows a moderate rationalization for capitalism in the Neo-Marxist theory of social and cultural factors in 20th century economics. Various institutions and Neo-Marxists theorists, such as Max Weber and Antonio Gramsci, tend to moderate the effect
In an article entitled “Resisting and reshaping destructive development: social movements and globalizing networks”, P. Routledge describes neoliberal development, “Contemporary economic development is guided by the economic principles of neoliberalism and popularly termed ‘globalization’. The fundamental principal of this doctrine is ‘economic liberty’ for the powerful, that is that an economy must be free from the social and political ‘impediments,’ ‘fetters’, and ‘restrictions’ placed upon it by states trying to regulate in the name of the public interest. These ‘impediments’ - which include national economic regulations, social programs, and class compromises (i.e. national bargaining agreements between employers and trade unions, assuming these are allowed) - are considered barriers to the free flow of trade and capital, and the freedom of transnational corporations to exploit labor and the environment in their best interests. Hence, the doctrine argues that national economies should be deregulated (e.g. through the privatization of state enterprises) in order to promote the allocation of resources by “the market” which, in practice, means by the most powerful.” (Routledge)
Origins for the cooperation amongst powers necessary to tackle international disputes can be traced back to the 19th century, however the formation of the League of Nations was eagerly prompted by the First World War. After the horrors in which the world observed, leaders merged together and rejoiced in the potential for a new international system. The League of Nations foremost objective was to secure peace through collective efforts of ‘peace-loving’ powers (Steans, Pettiford, & Diez, 2005, p. 31). President Woodrow Wilson was a lead proponent in the creation of such a body, suggesting it- within his message on the Conditions of Peace- as a means of ‘affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike’ (Wilson, 1918). The following year a detailed scheme was presented at the Versailles Peace Conference and the league was swiftly established with the addition of a permanent secretariat in Geneva. (Catterall, 1999, p. 50). The League was very much considered the ‘most daring and innovative proposal’ (Wilkinson, 2007, p. 85)
Makwana, R. (2006). Globalization: neoliberalism and economic globalization. Retrieved April 05, 2014, from Share The World’s Resources website: http://www.stwr.org/globalization/neoliberalism-and-economic-globalization.html
In order for countries to cohesively overcome international barriers, frameworks of ideal political standards must be established. Two of these frameworks constantly discussed in international relations are the theories of Neo-realism and Liberalism; two theories with their own outlook at the way politicians should govern their country as well as how they should deal with others. Neo-realism lies on the structural level, emphasizing on anarchy and the balance of power as a dominant factor in order to maintain hierarchy in international affairs. In contrast, Liberalism's beliefs are more permissive, focusing on the establishments of international organizations, democracy, and trade as links to strengthen the chain of peace amongst countries. Liberalism provides a theory that predominantly explains how states can collaborate in order to promote global peace; however, as wars have been analyzed, for example World War II, the causes of them are better explained by Neo-realist beliefs on the balance of power and states acting as unitary actors. Thus, looking out for their own self interest and security.
In conclusion realist and liberalist theories provide contrasting views on goals and instruments of international affairs. Each theory offers reasons why state and people behave the way they do when confronted with questions such as power, anarchy, state interests and the cause of war. Realists have a pessimistic view about human nature and they see international relations as driven by a states self preservation and suggest that the primary objective of every state is to promote its national interest and that power is gained through war or the threat of military action. Liberalism on the other hand has an optimistic view about human nature and focuses on democracy and individual rights and that economic independence is achieved through cooperation among states and power is gained through lasting alliances and state interdependence.
Weiss, L. (1997),’Globalization and the Myth of the Powerless State’, in New Left Review, September-October, 225 (1), pp. 3-27 [Online].
To begin, this critical response paper will provide a detailed explanation for the significant merit of globalization in context with work or services implementing the dominant western society of the world from other countries that have fewer resources compared to the first world countries. According to Ravelli and Webber (2015) in the textbook “Exploring Sociology,” Globalization initially emerged from Europe when the booming economic industries prepared colonies to transport cheap materials from global south countries to incorporate them with their own resources. This is known as eurocentrism and the help of European globalization has affected the working class or the bourgeois class in the entire world. Furthermore, globalization refers
Although the Cold War seems to be an ideological rivalry between the capitalism and capitalism, it accidentally catalyzes a great myriad of transnational cooperation and the reinvention of liberalism. Liberalism has evolved to be a dominant political ideology, neoliberalism, since 1970s. The notion of neoliberalism is that transnational institutions are conducive to global changes, harmony and prosperity through launching international programme. Differed from other theories solely recognizing the sovereign states as the only actor, neoliberalism also emphasizes the participation of other actors, such as the transnational corporations (TNC), which are the enterprises conduct economic activities or production of goods and services in multiple states, and non-governmental organizations (NGO). Besides, neoliberalism does not only attend to high-political issues, for instances, collective security, but also the low-politics in economic and cultural aspects. In the light of the main theme of neoliberalism, one may also conclude globalization is beneficial to all. Still, globalization would also engender some challenges, for instances, the North/ South division, to all. Therefore, this thesis destines
The Neoliberal ideology believes that government intervention of the markets should be as minimal as possible. It is unlike libertarianism that tends to focus on legal and social rights. The central beliefs of neoliberalism and libertarianism maintain is that human nature is self interested, meaning that human nature prioritizes human nature individualism over communitarianism. Furthermore, the neoliberal ideals of liberty are fueled through negative liberties. Last, it insists that economic organization is best market driven where there is a little state intervention as possible. From the prospective of a neoliberal, globalization is a economically driven process that should adhere to neoliberal principles of private property and economic markets without state regulated. Neoliberalism as a result is very much a Lockean idea. The neoliberal doctrine has dominated international politics due to the world markets becoming increasingly privatized, de-regulated and laissez faire. This paper will argue that globalization is a product of globalization, as it follows the principle beliefs of neoliberalism.
Many historians and sociologists have identified a transformation in the economic processes of the world and society in recent times. There has been an extensive increase in developments in technology and the economy as a whole in the twentieth century. Globalization has been recognized as a new age in which the world has developed into what Giddens identifies to be a “single social system” (Anthony Giddens: 1993 ‘Sociology’ pg 528), due to the rise of interdependence of various countries on one another, therefore affecting practically everyone within society.
Globalization can briefly be defined as ‘something’ that affects and changes the traditional arrangements of the state system. It is a term that directly implies change and therefore is a continuos process over a long period of time as compared to quickly changing into a wanted or desir...
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,
Neo-Marxists were starting to apply Marxism to the classic monopolistic economy. But there are two reason of the methodological change of Marxist economics.
There is an undeniable fact that there has been a rise in globalization. It has become a hot topic amongst the field of international politics. With the rise of globalization, the sovereignty of the state is now being undermined. It has become an undisputed fact that the world has evolved to a new level of globalization, the transferring goods, information, ideas and services around the globe has changed at an unimaginable rate. With all that is going on, one would question how globalization has changed the system that is typically a collection of sovereign states. Do states still have the main source of power? What gives a state the right to rule a geographically defined region? It is believed by many that due to the introduction of international systems and increasing rate of globalization, the sovereignty of the state has been slowly eroded over time. My paper has two parts: First, it aims to take a close look at how globalization has changed the way the economy worked, specifically how it opened doors for multinational corporations to rise in power. Second, to answer the question, is it possible for it to exist today? And even so, should it?