Global Political Economy:a critical review of its theoretical approaches - Essay Example

? GLOBAL POLITICAL ECONOMY (A Critical Review of its Theoretical Approaches) by: ID Number Presented Name of the University School Location Estimated Word Count: (2,397 of text only) Due on: October 27, 2013 Introduction The spread of free market capitalism throughout the world today is quite unprecedented and it is no doubt aided by liberalism and the globalization of trade and finance because of only one superpower nation in the world. However, America itself is also influenced and even under the same threats that confront other nations resulting from globalisation. It is not a simple issue to deal with, as America finds its ability to manoeuvre paradoxically limited, constrained by global forces outside its control. However, globalisation helps spread the ideals of liberalism of good governance, representative democracy and the benefits of free and fair trade to all peoples. Globalisation must be pursued because it offers the best chance for continued world peace although it has its many drawbacks too, such as the marginalisation of a large proportion of the labour sector. Liberal policies anchored on free and fair trade can spread the benefits of globalisation (a rising tide lifts all boats) but those left out must be given the chance to share in the wealth being created and international security concerns must be addressed as well. Discussion In an article entitled “Globalization, American Power, and International Security,” Kirshner argues globalization is simply not the usual relations between two or more states; it refers to the emergence of unorganised and stateless forces which in turn affect nation-states. His view is that globalisation is not inevitable or irreversible; it is not new also, as the world had seen it centuries before in different forms. Globalisation makes it expensive for states not to embrace it if they will resort to protectionism (Gills, 2013:35). A key consideration is states resisting globalisation will end up marginalised, which makes joining a more compelling and logical option instead. A noteworthy feature of globalisation is the unique role of America in its status as sole superpower from the comparative political perspective (Lijphart, 1971:685); it is the one country able to influence globalisation, with a lot of options available to it (Kirshner, 2008:366). An example is a pre-emptive (preventive) war it pursues against rogue states (Silverstone, 2012:15); another example is globalisation is the result of an American policy of benign permissiveness (Kirshner, 2006:4). America cannot claim complete military or economic hegemony. Globalisation altered the relations between states, their capacities to intervene against market forces, social pressures, and non-state actors, and also created new opportunities for armed conflicts by entrepreneurs of political violence. But this possibility is limited by the reduced gains from any territorial conquest, which is due to the globalisation of finance, trade, and production facilities. It is a disincentive to go to war and instead places a premium on negotiation and cooperation. The existence of global banks, lending institutions, and credit rating firms makes a conventional war unlikely. This article by Kirschner emphasizes globalisation in terms of its security implications, the processes it undergoes, and political context in which it occurs. Admittedly, the United States of America as sole superpower is in an enviable position of dictating globalisation to its own liking, but this has unforeseen consequences. One compelling selling point of globalisation is that a “rising tide will lift all boats” but this is not true in all instances; some nations found themselves at the losing end of globalisation as they cannot cope with both deregulation and privatisation through economic liberalisation. The benefits of globalisation did not accrue to everybody (Bothmer, 2007:133). Even America itself cannot translate its sole superpower status into concrete economic gains or financial advantages. Strengths of this article are good overview of the shifting nature of globalisation, a good background explanation of how the hypermedia environment has transformed state capacities, and liberalisation of global finance did not in any way contribute significantly to economic efficiency. Weaknesses of the article include an over-emphasis on the role of America in most conflicts, how globalisation made a conventional war less likely but contradicts it by stating localised conflicts can become common due to enhanced opportunities for terrorists, ethnic cleansing, and higher chances of weak states becoming failed states. Many of the author's claims are quite obvious and do not need elaboration. What should have been discussed intensively is how big corporations now control world politics. John Ikenberry in his article “The Liberal International Order and its Discontents” echoes the same lines of argument espoused by Kirschner. The main theme explicated by Ikenberry is that although globalisation today is in a crisis, it is not a crisis of liberalism, but rather a crisis of America itself. Its position as sole superpower gave it many problems and people confuse this crisis with the liberal international order. This order is a very durable system and a good replacement of previous international order based on imperialism and colonialism, a deterrent against conventional wars but new threats have emerged. The present international order has been equated with America because it is the foremost proponent of this order but as Ikenberry points out, a new world order will be a certainty because that is what the trends portend. New multi-polar world is a more natural order than just one country exercising superpower status (Ikenberry, 2010:2); the rise of new power centres should not alarm anybody. Ikenberry made the observation how authoritarian states like Russia and China adjust to globalisation quite well despite being autocratic and able to trade in world markets, achieving sustained growth and development but hostile to Western ideas of democracy and liberalism. This alternative path towards modernity, in addition to the traditional path of the old Western liberalism, can pave the way to a return of multi-polarity in world affairs when some states use repression to coerce but still attain economic development (Albertus & Menaldo, 2012:2). An insight offered by the author is that although America is in a crisis and saw its image and authority tarnished somewhat, the liberal order will still be a viable global order due its innate principles and organisational logic. It is a crisis of America and should not be construed to include the entire international order itself. A nice alternative to liberalism simply does not exist and options like regional blocs, exclusive groupings, and spheres of influence are not substitutes for the existing international order. Global industries lost comparative advantages due to globalisation (Jomo & Baudot, 2007:74) but it fostered greater income inequality. Another useful insight by Ikenberry is the crisis in liberalism today will bring more liberalism and not the other way around; this is because a rules-based system of relations among nations offers the best hope, a unique world order based on cooperation through cooperative security, open markets, and multilateral organisations like the U. N., the NATO, and the WTO. World trade agreements and groupings promote progress by breaking down protectionist barriers. The liberal international order is identified with America because over several decades, it was able to exert its influence as sole superpower with the end of the Cold War. It created a new world order that is based on American liberal ideals, a political order that is hierarchical and is imbued with characteristic features of democracy and liberalism. This order is responsible for lifting half a billion people out of absolute poverty because globalisation brought all the benefits of free and fair trade but this benefit is uneven. It is inevitable countries will be left out due to differences in comparative advantages. The success of a liberal international order can be measured by the degree of wealth creation it generated and overall physical security. A similar idea between Kirschner and Ikenberry is their belief that this existing world order of globalisation and liberalism will persist because countries find it easy to join a global club that is expansive and integrative while it is hard to overturn offers of joining as it defies logic and has many costs to it. It is a good coincidence both authors arrived at the same conclusion although expressed differently but the main idea was the same: join or get left out and so the international liberal order will persist but will surely evolve. Other reasons why the liberal international order will continue is the absence of factors which predispose countries to war, newly-rising states such as the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) do not seek to operate outside of the current global system but operate within it, and a last justification to support this existing system is all the states (major and newly-rising) have a rare alignment of interests on global issues like dwindling energy resources, an altered and degraded environment, and climate change, to name just a few. It is better to cooperate on the issues as these cannot be tackled by individual nations. The analysis by Ikenberry on why the existing world order will continue in the near future is compelling indeed. Common interests of all countries require cooperation, not confrontation; this pathway offers modernity, progress, and development. Old ideologies like communism, fascism, and theocracy are no longer workable in a modern world. The present uni-polarity in world affairs is unique in world history but this will give way to multi-polarity because many states cannot tolerate such a state of affairs that is hinged on disequilibrium; sooner or later, a new balancing act of world powers comes into being as American power is diffused. Another key similarity between Kirschmenr and Ikenberry is their conclusion how powers of states are diminished due to the hypermedia environment in which stateless actors (non-state) such as transnational gangs, criminal syndicates, and terrorist organisations acquired means and capabilities to launch violence because of probable acquisition of the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) which threaten international security. The conclusion by Ikenberry that international security cooperation will increase is valid as no country can parry these threats. The weaknesses found in Ikenberry's article is his bias towards American superpower status. He mentions how uni-polarity has enhanced the projection of American power overseas but he overlooked the many limitations of American power today due to forces of globalisation. He earlier advanced the idea how the liberal international order makes it easy for new states to join the global club but in a later commentary, he contradicted this by saying the newly-rising states like the BRIC can confront the existing world order, instead of joining. It inserts a dissonant tone in his arguments and confuses the reader as to how he foresees world order will be transformed. The article by W. I. Robinson entitled “Global Capitalism and its Anti-Human Face: Organic Intellectuals and Interpretations of the Crisis” examines labour implications of globalisation processes. Robinson advances a theory that global capitalism brought on the crisis due to its accumulation of wealth to the detriment of workers. The twin crises of ecological degradation and social deterioration is due to four factors, but new relations of inequality and dominance in a global society are main causes. What brought these developments is the spread of global capital which gained political power and marginalised a large number of migrant workers. The expansion of global capital has reached its limits in terms of ecological environments, in the sense every country has now been reached and exploited by global capitalists. This led to over-accumulation of excess capital because of lack in investment outlets. Reduced prospects of investments led global capitalists to cost reduction that hits at the labour force via wage decreases, lay-offs, diminution of benefits, and austerity measures resulting in a population of permanently unemployed surplus workers. This big surplus is marginalised and locked out of the world's productive economy, resulting in mortal cycle of dispossession, exploitation, and exclusion (Robinson, 2013:4). This action by global capitalists is a self-inflected problem because by denying these workers good-paying jobs, a market for capitalists is also removed. It deprives workers buying power which could have contributed to capitalist profits. In other words, global capitalists deprived themselves of a bigger market for products and services by eliminating jobs; a current global capitalism crisis is manifested by declining profits from a declining middle class. Trends of establishing export trade zones (ETZ) and business process outsourcing (BPO) brought only foreign direct investments (FDI) but there was no corresponding value added in terms of new skills for workers or any real technology transfer. It is a new form of neo-bondage, marked by extremely low wages (Breman, 2010:48). The limits of extensive, expansive, and extractive capitalism has been reached as there are no more countries left to exploit. These limited investment areas led to the contractualisation of a global workforce by capitalist devices such as sub-contracting, near-shoring, off-shoring, and outsourcing. Benefit derived from globalisation ended up in the hands of a few people who feel threatened by masses of unemployed workers, hence the need for social control. The crisis in capitalism is due to its over-accumulation of wealth. Conclusion While there is no denying the benefits of globalisation, there is also the undeniable fact how global migrant workers are marginalised by excluding them from the productive economy. The crisis is due to contraction of global markets due to the loss of buying power of workers while global output increased. Deregulation of global finance gave unlimited political power but leaders of nation-states must temper capitalism with a more human face by mitigating its undesirable aspects, mainly labour exploitation and marginalisation by contractualisation and the loss of benefits, in the mad race to the bottom (Rivoli, 2009:92). Reforms must address income inequality by wealth redistribution. Capitalism must respect the rights of workers, as mandated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations General Assembly, 1948:1). Other issues include preventing the rise of twenty-first century fascism as labour cannot be controlled forever and legislation must protect labour, back to the old Progressive Era when no class took advantage of others (Katz, 2013:276). Global political economy must recognize the value of millions of faceless workers who had been dispossessed of good jobs, and organic individuals with a social conscience should contradict Marx's observation that an unemployed worker is just a rascal, thief, swindler, beggar, and wretched; a wage-less worker is a person who deserves respect and not someone in the planet of slums, as just idle labour (Denning, 2010:1). Pauperization of workers must be stopped by preventing extremely low wages (Jones, 2009:33) that makes them more marginalised (O'brien & Williams, 2010:55). References Albertus, M. & Menaldo, V. (2012) “Coercive Capacity and the Prospects for Democratization.” Journal of Comparative Politics, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 1-5. Bothmer, B. (2007) Blaming the Sixties: The Political Use of an Era, 1980-2004. Ann Arbor, MI, USA: ProQuest Learning Company. Breman, J. (2010) “Neo-bondage: Shifting Boundaries between Free and Unfree Labour.” International Labour and Working-class History, October 12, Vol. 78, No.1, pp. 48-62. Denning, M. (2010) “Wageless Life.” New Left Review, November-December, Issue 66. Gills, B. K. (2013) Global Politics of Globalization. New York, NY, USA: Routledge. Ikenberry, G. John (2010) “The Liberal International Order and its Discontents.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies, May 10, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 1-13. Jomo, K. S. & Baudot (2007) Flat World, Big Gaps: Economic Liberalisation, Globalisation, and Inequality. London, UK: Zed Books, Limited. Jones, M. T. (2009) “Non-market Strategy and the 'race to the bottom': Lessons from the Baywatch Experience. Journal of Australian Political Economy, June, Vol. 63, pp. 32-55. Katz, C. J. (2013) “Protective Labour Legislation in the Courts: Substantive Due Process and Fairness in the Progressive Era.” Law and History Review, May 07, Vol. 31, Issue 2, pp. 275-323. Kirshner, J. (2006) Globalization and National Security. New York, NY, USA: Routledge. Kirshner, J. (2008) “Globalization, American Power, and International Security.” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 123, No. 3, pp. 363-389. Lijphart, A. (1971) “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method.” The American Political Science Review, September, Vol. 65, Issue 3, pp. 682-693. O'Brien, R. & Williams, M. (2010) Global Political Economy: Evolution and Dynamics. Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Robinson, W. I. (2013). “Global Capitalism and its Anti-Human Face: Organic Intellectuals and Interpretations of the Crisis.” [on-line]. Globalizations, September 11, pp. 1-12. Available at . Accessed on [19 October, 2013]. Silverstone, S. (2012) Preventive War and American Democracy. New York, NY, USA: Routledge. Rivoli, P. (2009) The Travels of a T-shirt in the Global Economy: An Economist Examines the Markets, Power, and Politics of World Trade. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons. United Nations General Assembly (1948) “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” [on-line]. The United Nations, December 10. Available at . Accessed on [26 October, 2013]. Read More