Neo-realist and liberal approaches towards globalisation have been debated about for many decades. Traditionally the liberal view towards globalisation has exaggerated the idea of globalisation, whilst neo-realist views have played down the importance of globalisation. The word “useful” can be defined on various different levels in order to come to a conclusion. Usefulness can be looked at as to how well each approach can help understand globalisation, however, usefulness can also be used to describe the impact of the different approaches and finally the word useful can be used to identify the accuracy of the two approaches, hopefully helping to recognise which approach to globalisation is most useful. This essay will first look at the differences between the neo-realist and liberal approaches to globalisation. These include; the extent to which globalisation exists in these approaches, the part that war has to play in the globalisation debate and finally where power lies which differs a lot between the two approaches, as Scholte describes, ‘realism oversimplistically reduces power relations’ (Scholte: 2005: p.128) which is in complete contrast to the liberal view of globalisation. This essay will then go on to look at the similarities existing between these two approaches which include the fact that these approaches are both Eurocentric and that they are not up to date with contemporary international politics. The usefulness of these approaches will be examined throughout in order to come to an analytical and evaluative conclusion, which gives a clear indication of the importance and extent of globalisation. Neo-realist and liberal views were coined by very different thinkers, who therefore have different views on globalisation... ... middle of paper ... ...t view is a very narrow view of globalisation, simply dismissing its existence without looking deeper into globalisation. It is therefore fair to say that the liberal approach to globalisation is most useful as it gives an in depth view of globalisation with links to contemporary examples. The liberal view is more practical than the neo-realist view as can be shown by Reagan and Thatcher adopting the policies of Adam Smith in the 1980’s. therefore, although the neo-realist approach to globalisation is both interesting and insightful, the liberal approach to globalisation is much more useful as it is up to date and practical, and seems to be a more accurate way to describe global politics at the present time, particularly with Europe suffering from recession due to US markets. Therefore the liberal approach to globalisation is more useful than that of neo-realists.
To understand the international relations of contemporary society and how and why historically states has acted in such a way in regarding international relations, the scholars developed numerous theories. Among these numerous theories, the two theories that are considered as mainstream are liberalism and realism because the most actors in stage of international relations are favouring either theories as a framework and these theories explains why the most actors are taking such actions regarding foreign politics. The realism was theorized in earlier writings by numerous historical figures, however it didn't become main approach to understand international relations until it replaced idealist approach following the Great Debate and the outbreak of Second World War. Not all realists agrees on the issues and ways to interpret international relations and realism is divided into several types. As realism became the dominant theory, idealistic approach to understand international relations quickly sparked out with failure of the League of Nation, however idealism helped draw another theory to understand international relations. The liberalism is the historical alternative to the realism and like realism, liberalism has numerous branches of thoughts such as neo-liberalism and institutional liberalism. This essay will compare and contrast the two major international relations theories known as realism and liberalism and its branches of thoughts and argue in favour for one of the two theories.
Neoliberalism, also called free market economy, is a set of economic policies that became widespread in the last 25 years. The concept neoliberalism, have been imposed by financial institutions that fall under the Bretton Woods such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Trade Organization (WTO) and World Bank (Martinez & Garcia, 1996). One of the famous economists published a book called “The Wealth of Nations” in which he said in it that free trade is the best way to develop nations economies (Martinez & Garcia, 1996). He and other economists also encouraged the removal of government intervention in economic matters, no restrictions on manufacturing, removing borders and barriers between nations, and no taxes (Martinez & Garcia, 1996). The main goal of the economic globalization was to reduce poverty and inequality in the poorest regions. However, the effects of the neoliberal policies on people all over the world has been devastating (MIT, 2000).
Neo-liberalism is a mixture of free-market policies and global-market-liberalism. The neoliberal model consists of reducing the state intervention in the economy. Franko describes “New political economy suggests that people make their own best choices” (Franko 2007 page 151). The model gives each individual the opportunity to make the most adequate choices for the economy without the interference of the government. It is believe that the state intervention will distort the market signals required to make the most precise decision making (pg. 151 Franko 2007).
Both of these are international relations theories. International relations theories aid the individual in better understanding why states behave the way in which they do and “several major schools of thought are discernable, differentiated principally by the variables they emphasize” (Slaughter 1). That being said, to understand offensive neorealism, one must firstly be able to know the basis of realism in itself, as well as differentiate neorealism from neoclassical realism. Stephen G. Brooks argues in his article “Dueling Realisms” that both “neorealism and postclassical realism do share important similarities: both have a systemic focus; both are state-centric; both view international politics as inherently competitive; both emphasize material factors, rather than nonmaterial factors, such as ideas and institutions; and both assume states are egoistic actors that pursue self-help” (Brooks 446). Structural realism is another term for neorealism, and both will be used interchangeably in the following case study. Aside from these shared values that both reflect, the two forms of realism both present very different or conflicting views on state behaviour. For one, neorealists believe “the international system is defined by anarchy—the absence of a central authority” (Slaughter 2) and that states take action based on the possibility of conflict, always looking at a worst-case scenario, whereas postclassical realists believe that states make decisions and take actions based on the probability of an attack or act of aggression from other states (Brooks 446). To expand on neorealism’s possibility outlook, Kenneth Waltz argues, “in the absence of a supreme authority [due to anarchy], there is then constant possibility that conflicts will be settled by force” (Brooks 447). Neorealists look at the possibility of conflict due to the potential cost of war, due to
The essay, “The Noble Feat of Nike” by Johan Norberg basically talks about the effects of Nike going into third world countries, particularly Vietnam. Norberg explains how Nike’s factory gains from being in its desired location, Vietnam. Vietnam being a communist country comes to Nike’s advantage, because if they were located elsewhere they would have to pay workers higher wages and use more of their machines. Workers in these countries are provided with an air conditioned building with regular wages, free meal plans, free medical service, and training/education to operate the machinery within the factory. The workers find all of this beneficial and in their own favor because of the fact their earning double to five times the amount in wages than if they were working outdoors on a farm. This great deal, blinds them to notice the meaning behind the company’s location in Vietnam. The Nike factory was rather clever in making their location in that specific area to gain benefits for Western owners. The catch Nike gains from is simple. The owners pay factory workers only a small monthly sum from what they make selling the shoes to customers. Globalists state that the company doesn’t pull this fast one on the Western population because of our advancements compared to the Eastern countries. Western people would protest and strike to demand better wages for their work, but the people in Eastern countries have no choice but to deal with the injustice in order to support their families and educate their children.
In this essay I will give a detailed explanation of what sociologists mean by the term ‘globalisation’ and how they have tried to explain it.
Neoliberalism has changed its meaning and definition over the years, but as of right now the Merriam Webster dictionary defines it as “a liberal who de-emphasizes traditional liberal doctrines in order to seek progress by more pragmatic methods.” This all means that the economics aspects of society are much more closed off and in favor of big businesses that tend to exploit consumers and those that work for them. It wants privatize business and allow for there to be free trade. Neoliberalism is also about reducing government involvement and reduce spending to the point where it can open up privatized sectors in the economy. Behind the Seams, Fruits of Injustice, and Maquilapolis all show the evilness of neoliberalism and what it does for
Regarding Brexit, realism and liberalism have different viewpoints. Particularly, since realism claims that a state’s ultimate goal is power, realism suggests that
Why and how did globalization occur? Different perspectives have different explanations as to why and how globalization evolved. Realists argue that international trade is most effective when there is hegemony in the world market, whereas liberalists believe that it is a matter of how countries use the idea of reciprocity in their decision about trade. I agree with the realist perspective because hegemony allows the global economy to enhance and international trade functions the best when a hegemon dominates the world market.
Neoliberalism is a policy model of social studies and economics that transfers control of economic factors to the private sector from the public sector. ... Neoliberal policies aim for a laissez-faire approach to economic
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?
Globalisation goes back as far as the era before the First World War. During that time globalisation’s general tendencies produced a very uneven pattern of global economic development, exposing the limits of global economic integration. For example, the integration of the African economy into the capitalist economy is part of the globalising tendencies of capitalism.
The study of international relations takes a wide range of theoretical approaches. Some emerge from within the discipline itself others have been imported, in whole or in part, from disciplines such as economics or sociology. Indeed, few social scientific theories have not been applied to the study of relations amongst nations. Many theories of international relations are internally and externally contested, and few scholars believe only in one or another. In spite of this diversity, several major schools of thought are discernable, differentiated principally by the variables they emphasize on military power, material interests, or ideological beliefs. International Relations thinking have evolved in stages that are marked by specific debates between groups of scholars. The first major debate is between utopian liberalism and realism, the second debate is on method, between traditional approaches and behavioralism. The third debate is between neorealism/neoliberalism and neo-Marxism, and an emerging fourth debate is between established traditions and post-positivist alternatives (Jackson, 2007).
Over the last couple of years, the world has become increasingly globalized. After the cold war, all parts of the world were attracted to the process of globalization. The effect of globalization is uneven in different parts of the world and globalization suggests a world full of persistent cultural interaction and exchange, contacts and connection, mixture and movement. Different people view globalization in different ways. Some people feel it has done more good than harm, while others believe it has done more harm than good. This essay will give a deep intuitive understanding of globalization, world systems, and how globalization has affected society, culture, economics, and politics.
Al-Rodhan, Nayef. Definitions of Globalization:A Comprehensive Overview and a Proposed Definition. Geopolitical Implications of Globalization and Transnational Security . Geneva: GCSP, 2006.