Liberal, Marxist and Neorealist Approaches to Globalisation - Essay Example

? Liberal, Marxist and Neorealist Approaches to Globalisation Globalisation, according to a diverse number of schools of thought, is a force which is here to stay mainly because of the interaction and interdependence that has developed in the world today. While this may be the case, the fact remains that there have developed many theories to explain this phenomenon in the modern world. This is mainly because while there are some who believe that the globalization has brought along with it plenty of benefits for those whom it has come to influence, there are others who believe otherwise, stating that it has brought more harm than good in the world. Despite these different views concerning it, all of the theories that have been developed about it agree that it is among the most influential forces in the world today, with the ability of influencing individuals, either positively or negatively, at a global scale. It has, therefore, become necessary to make a study of the various theories or approaches that have been propagated by diverse groups with specific emphasis on liberals, Marxists, and neorealists. The liberal approach is among the most commonly used when discussing matters concerning globalization and it tends to consider its benefits more than its disadvantages. The liberal view supports globalization because of the belief that it is a natural development of free trade, which has been dominant for most of the history of modern western civilization. This approach is comparable to that of the neorealist approach, which holds the belief that in all aspects of life, including that of economics, only the strongest and most competitive can survive the global market scene. In fact, it can further be said that these two approaches consider the developments and fast growth of globalization as a necessary part of human development. The interdependent nature that has come about through this process has ensured that all the people in the world cannot survive without one another; that nobody is an island (Kosebalaban 2009). According to the liberal approach, globalization has become essential in ensuring that there is world peace, since because of the dependence between the various states in the world, the likelihood of conflict resulting in war has become minimized. In place of such conflicts, there has developed more dialogue, as this has become the main means through which an environment which is conducive for global trade is achieved. From the liberal approach, globalization is an unstoppable force which has the end result of ensuring that the lives of all the people affected by it improve. It is not only meant to benefit the large corporations, but through the trickledown effect, its benefits are supposed to also reach the people on the ground. This approach is often challenged by the Marxist approach which is of the belief that globalization as it currently is works towards the maintenance of the power and position of the bourgeoisie, since even in the globalised environment; it is the later who dominate the means of production. If one were to consider the Marxist approach closely, one would find that while it is in support of globalization, there would be a preference for the process to have been in the hands of the proletariat, where it would be based on equality in all the aspects of life. While not being against globalization, the Marxist approach looks upon it as it currently is as the continuation of the old order, where the masses are dominated by those who own the means of production. In addition, it can be said that the Marxist approach looks at globalization at a force which is out to ensure that the masses lose the freedoms, however limited, that they enjoyed (Callinicos 2005). The result of this would be their further exploitation by the large corporations which take advantage of them to acquire cheap labour and a ready market for their products. The neorealist approach can also be considered to be slightly similar to the Marxist stance that the masses will eventually end up losing their freewill, which will eventually be subservient to those of the large corporations that will dominate the globalised world. According to the neorealist approach, globalization has had a huge impact on the sovereignty of the states which have come to completely depend on it for their own economic survival. This approach can, in fact, be said that considers globalization as a force whose very presence works towards undermining state sovereignty because those decisions that governments all over the world make have to must put into consideration their impact on global affairs. An example of this are oil exporting countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, which heavily depend on the income from this product to fund their national budgets and if these countries were to act in a way which displeases the corporations that deal directly with them, then they would be forced to abandon such decisions. This is because of the fact that these corporations, which have incredible influence on the governments of their home countries, might influence the latter into placing of sanctions on the oil and gas exports of those states that do not comply with their demands (Harrison 2002). In addition, according to the neorealist approach, with the advent of globalization, many countries have economic interests in other countries, and in order to protect these interests, it has become necessary for the powerful to meddle in the political affairs of the weaker ones. If this approach is taken at face value, one would state that globalization has not only made the some nations to lose their sovereignty, but it has also encouraged their overdependence on more developed nations for economic aid. In most of the cases in the world, especially in third world countries, globalization has made it possible for economic power to be disproportionately balanced so that a few individuals within their societies hold most of the wealth while the rest hold very little or live in abject poverty. This scenario agrees with the Marxist approach, because the majority of the resources in the society are held by very few individuals and, in the process, it has made the gap between the rich and the poor to widen even further, creating a potential for social unrest (Kiely 2005). In such situations, the rich become richer while the poor have continued to become poorer as the cost of living increases while their income has remained the same, since globalization has led to a preference for cheap labour. Globalization, according to the liberal approach, has led to a level of economic prosperity that has never been known in human history. It is a beneficial aspect of the modern world because it not only enables people from diverse cultures to interact and work together towards making a better world, but it also provides them with equal opportunities of becoming prosperous. In this approach, the fact that globalization is taking place is most advantageous because it enables the further development of the world through its integration. The integration of diverse cultures that exist in the world today is a desirable phenomenon because it will help in the reduction of conflict based on different cultural practices as well as ethnicities. A neorealist, on the other hand, would argue that globalization, while having many benefits, also has more disadvantages especially considering how it is going to affect the world order. Globalization is the driving force behind the continued maintenance of the global power status quo, where the most developed countries in the world, which are few in number, dominate the majority, most of which can be considered to be either middle income or underdeveloped. Despite all the talk of its benefits to the global society as a whole, as espoused by the liberal approach, according to the neorealist one, globalization is a necessary aspect of the world, where the wealthiest and most powerful forces, whether political or economic, will remain dominant (Benar 2007). Equality has no place in the globalised world since the development of such a situation would mean that there would be a lack of direct control over societies, resulting in total chaos. The neorealist approach recognizes the fact that in a globalised world, the economic policies of many countries tend to be left in the hands of politicians, who make decisions about things or places on which they lack any form of familiarity. This has led many politicians to make decisions that, while ushering in and strengthening globalization, have also had a detrimental effect on their own people. An example of such a scenario is China, where because of the cheap labour as well as resources available to it, it has attracted a large number of multinational corporations, which have come to this country to take advantage of these opportunities (Kim 2009). While these companies have fueled the swift economic growth of China, the Chinese people themselves, especially those who work for multinational companies, have seen little benefit because these companies have increased the levels of exploitation to the highest limits. The corruption that is rampant in the Chinese government, especially in areas dealing with the economy, politicians who lack sufficient information about how to design effective and correct policies and programs to facilitate the development of their people, have been put in charge of running these departments. This has led China to pursue policies which are detrimental to the equal development of all its citizens as it has come to pursue policies that are aimed at securing the status quo. Because of globalization, the Chinese economy has developed in an unmatched pace, and this has allowed the ruling communist party to retain its legitimacy. While this has been the case, it is also detrimental because it has led to members of the Party and their families being favored at the expense of the poor, especially in the rural areas, who make up the majority of the Chinese society. The potential for social chaos because of this, as propagated by the Marxist approach, is quite possible especially when one considers that the so called trickle effect policies propagated by the liberal approach do not seem to work (Marks 2010). When one considers the neorealist approach, one comes to the conclusion that because of globalization, inequality has become a reality among the majority of the world’s population and this has come about mainly because of the interconnected nature of the world economy. The global economy is so connected that if a negative event in the economy takes place in a certain country, then it has domino effect on the economies of other countries (Sinha 2003). Despite this situation being what can be considered to be a detrimental factor of globalization, most of the leadership in the world, especially the executives of multinational corporations, who have the power to make a difference, are either unwilling or unable to do so because they do not want to disturb the status quo. This is due to the huge profits that these corporations have managed to make since the advent of globalization. Despite this being the case, the fact remains that the poor will not let the injustice of inequality go on forever, and if one were to apply the Marxist principle, if nothing is done to improve the lot of these people, then it is most likely that they are going to rise up against the established order. If such a thing were to happen, then it would only be a matter of time before there was complete chaos within the society, and this would lead to a justification of the Marxist social and economic theory. Therefore, it is essential that more equal economic policies be developed to ensure the sustenance of the world order as it is because to do otherwise would be detrimental. While this may be the case, the three approaches discussed above all seem to agree that globalization is a force to be reckoned with and that it is the reality of the world today. Hence, it can be said that as a recognized force that has both numerous advantages and disadvantages, the fact remains that it is here to stay and that people all over the world should find out ways of surviving in a globalised world. References Benar, H. 2007. "Has Globalization Increased Income Inequality in the MENA Region?" International Journal of Economic Perspectives 1.4 : 195. Callinicos, A. 2005. "Epoch and Conjuncture in Marxist Political Economy." International Politics 42.3 : 353-63. Harrison, E. 2002. "Waltz, Kant and Systemic Approaches to International Relations." Review of International Studies 28.1: 143-62. Kiely, R. 2005."Capitalist Expansion and the Imperialism-Globalization Debate: Contemporary Marxist Explanations." Journal of International Relations and Development 8.1 : 27-57. Kim, S. 2009. "China And Globalization: Confronting Myriad Challenges And Opportunities." Asian Perspective 33.3 : 41. Kosebalaban, H. 2009. "Globalization and the Crisis of Authoritarian Modernization in Turkey." Insight Turkey 11.4: 77-97. Marks, S. 2010. "International Law on the Left: Re-Examining Marxist Legacies." Leiden Journal of International Law 23.3 : 687-707. Sinha, D. 2003."The Limits of Capitalism: An Approach to Globalization without Neoliberalism." Journal of Third World Studies 20.2: 267-9. Read More