Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The impact of multinational corporations
What is balance of power in simple terms.
Principles of balance of power
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The impact of multinational corporations
Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye discussed interdependence and transnationalism in their first publication, ‘Power and Interdependence’ released in 1977. The release coincided with the United Nations (UN) decade of Development where states pushed towards economic growth and social advancement. The 70’s was also a particularly quiet time during the Cold War and was when the European Community (EC) really came to fruition. The world was moving forward at a substantial rate and the old schools of thought seemed less and less relevant in understanding world politics. Keohane and Nye pointed to organisations such as the EC and Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) stating that these along with the rise of multinational corporations and intergovernmental organisations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, destroyed the old schools of thought, they no longer applied to this new international system.
The traditional view of world politics was Realism, this theory concentrated on security as the main factor in world politics, this meant political integration between states was believed to be slight and only viable as long as it served the national interest of the state. Transnational actors were believed to not exist or not have any political importance. The balance of power was decided militarily and needed to remain stable (Keohane & Nye, 2011: 20). With the changes the 1970’s brought and with transnationalism becoming ever more prevalent and obvious many believed realism no longer described the world.
“Interdependence means mutual dependence… characterised by reciprocal effects across countries or among actors in different countries” (Keohane & Nye, 2011: 7). This mutual dependence can still ...
... middle of paper ...
...deas such as globalisation. With an ever changing world and ever changing systems are certainly need.
Works Cited
BBC. (2011, September). North Korea country profile . Retrieved December 2011, from BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/country_profiles/1131421.stm#facts
Clavin, P. (2005). Defining Transnationalism. Contemporary European History, 14(4), 421-439.
Goldstein, J. S. (2001). International Relations (4th ed.). New York: Longman.
Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (2011). Power and Interdependence. (4th, Ed.) Boston: Longman.
NPR. (2005, April). 50th Anniversary of McDonald's. Retrieved December 2011, from NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4600471
Sullivan, M. P. (1982). Transnationalism, Power Politics, and the Realitities of the Present System - Globalism Versus Realism. (R. Maghroori, & B. Ramberg, Eds.) Colorado: Westview.
North Korea Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. The Web. The Web. 02 Apr. 2014.
New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Shiraev, Eric B., and Vladislav M. Zubok. International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Silver, Larry.
Mearsheimer J. J. (2010). Structural Realism. International Relations Thoeries, Discipline and Diversity (Second Edition), p.77-94
Kent, J. and Young, J.W. (2013), International Relations Since 1945: A global History. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Tarrow, Sidney. “Transnational Politics: Contention and Institutions in International Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science, 2001.4.
Classical realism originates from the ancient times of the Greek empires. This theory in international relations has dominated the sphere and the conception of world politics for centuries. Classical realists such as Morgenthau and Thucydides outline different factors in explaining politics at all levels and emphasize that politics is described throughout the theory of classical realism. Like every theory in international relations, classical realism has strengths and weaknesses that define its impact in the international level. In our current age of diplomacy, classical realism is not a common theory in current international politics. Although it is not as relevant as it has been in the past, there is potential for classical
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
Gilpin, Robert. Global Political Economy: Understanding the International Economic Order. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. Print.
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.
However, the structure and process of international relations, since the end of World War II, has been fundamentally impacted through an immense growth of a variety of factors at multiple levels, which leads to the liberalist theoretical perspective of global complex interdependency. The complex interdependency is constructed from the liberalist theoretical perspective emphasizing interdependence between states and substate actors as the key characteristics of the international system (Ray and Kaarbo 7), which means that cooperation can be made more te...
To conclude, there are four main components of the realist approach to international relations, they are: state which includes egoism as the states are composed by the selfish people, self-help which includes balance of power as power is used to enhance the survival rate, survival which includes hegemony in order to maintain its position and anarchical system which related to lust for power and led to security dilemma.
Baylis, Smith and Patricia Owens. 2014. The globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international relations. London. Oxford University Press.
An outstanding mechanism frequently used to interpret ‘Globalization’ is the ‘World Economy’. Back to the colonial age, the coinstantaneous behaviors of worldwide capitals and energy resources flowed from colonies to western countries has been regarded as the rudiment of the economic geography (Jürgen and Niles, 2005). Nowadays, the global economy was dominated by transnational corporations and banking institutions mostly located in developed countries. However, it is apparently that countries with higher level of comprehensive national strength are eager for a bigger market to dump surplus domestic produce and allocate energy resources in a global scale, thus leads to a world economic integration. This module was supported by several historical globalists (Paul Hirst, Grahame Thompson and Deepak Nayyer) ‘their position is that globalization is nothing new but more fashionable and exaggerate, a tremendous amount of internationalization of money and trade in earlier periods is hardly less than today.’ (Frans J Schuurman 2001:64).
The dependency theory is a very different approach than the others. It offers great insight into a concept that is often overlooked, however, this theory risks being too narrow. It does not do a great deal to account for other types of international relationships. Power is at the center of this theory as well, and in this situation, it is beneficial to one