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
By definition neo-liberalism is “a reinterpretation of liberalism that posits that even in an anarchic international system, states will cooperate because of their continuous interactions with each other and because it is in their self-interest to do so; institutions provide the framework for cooperative interactions.” (Mingst, 2011) The theory (neo-liberalism) relies on the prisoner’s dilemma, the initiation and use of institutions, and the common interest of one’s self to gain power and/ or advance without hurting themselves.
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)
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.
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
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
Modern Liberalism can be tied to the creation of the President Woodrow Wilson’s speech “The World must be made safe Democracy, Fourteen Points”. One of the points, the last one called for the creation of a League Nations. The purpose of the League was create a forum where na-tions can discuss their differences without resorting to war and to maintain each nation’s politi-cal and territorial integrity. The league turned out to be a failure for three reasons: One the United States, which championed its cause did not join due to an isolationist world view other major nations were excluded such as Russia and Germany, creating a lack of legitimacy and prestige. Second, the lack to authority to have nations contribute military power to enforce its will if economic sanctions did not work. Third, the international community was not ready for a League concept.
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.
Neo-Marxists were starting to apply Marxism to the classic monopolistic economy. But there are two reason of the methodological change of Marxist economics.
Imperialism is also as a primary cause of conflict to a liberal. This is as a result of countries in the position like that of the USA extending its’ hegemonic state to justify unnecessary use of its’ military forces. This extension of power and influence leads to a breakdown in the balance of power- what a liberal believes is the ultimate cause of war. A liberal sees the balance of power as fragile and risky, making the world susceptible to international conflict at the slightest imbalance.
After the cold war, word ‘globalization’ was commonly used at a time of unprecedented interconnectedness when advanced nations experienced a ruthless development by exploiting energy resources and stressing culture forms in developing countries. To identify the definition of ‘globalization’, it is significant to clarify its appearance as well as implication.
““My conception of the League of Nations is just this, that it shall operate as the organized moral force of men throughout the world and that whenever or wherever wrong and aggression are planned or contemplated, this searching light of conscience will be turned upon them” (2) In an ideal world, the concept of collective security would be adopted since it would be beneficial for every nation. However, this is not an ideal world, and the theory has been highly criticized from start to finish. Many believe that if a threat were to occur from outside the party than the theory would be useless, (3) as that state is not bounded by any rules and obligations. Another problem consistent with the theory of collective theory is that not every nation may be... ...
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.
Globalization is the new notion that has come to rule the world since the nineties of the last century with the end of the cold war. The frontlines of the state with increased reliance on the market economy and renewed belief in the private capital and assets, a process of structural alteration encouraged by the studies and influences of the World Bank and other International organisations have started in many of countries. Also Globalisation has brought in new avenues to developing countries. Greater access to developed country markets and technology transfer hold out promise improved productivity and higher living standard.
Colonialism was a concept of superiority of one territory over another; it was a concept that originated centuries ago. Colonialism had been put into action throughout a long line of history and did not end after World War II in 1945. Even with resistance and efforts from independent states after the war, colonialism did not disappear and continued as a dominant system. It remained and changed its form, resulted in the process of globalization, which continued to control over newly independent states following World War II. Globalization, a form of colonialism, maintained power for the system over states or regions through economic terms with the development of the World Bank, and its derivation of structural adjustments. This financial institution was formed and contributed to colonialism; it assisted in the economic affairs of colonized nation(s). Along with class, professor Manfred B. Steger's book, Globalization: A Very Short Introduction, and I.B. Logan and Kidane Mengisteab's article, "IMF – World Bank Adjustment and Structural Transformation in Sub-Saharan Africa," discussed the indirect rule of colonial powers through globalization.
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?