7 Separate annotated bibligraphy - Essay Example

Download file to see previous pages Globalization, Dirlik argues, is not simply global integration, as suggested by its economistic ideologues and interpreters, but a new mode of fragmentation and of comprehending the world. It is therefore necessary to critically consider the historical relationship between globalization as a new beginning in breaking down old hegemonies and as the ultimate victory of capitalist modernity.
He concludes that whilst globalization is best understood historically, it also has produced new ways of looking at history, and that there is a need to write world history in non-Eurocentric ways and to understand globalization from two different historical perspectives.
Ikenberry shows the linked history, present, and future questions between American hegemony and open economic markets characteristic of globalization. Whilst this is not surprising since “economic relationships always bear the imprint of powerful states”, what is admirable is how America successfully utilised its political and economic interests and the tools – building institutions, managing monetary policy, and forging security alliances – to open the world economy. Ikenberry attributes hegemonic success to political and economic leadership that allowed America to resist temptations of protectionism, colonialism and isolationism.
Global domination and leadership, by allowing America’s political-economic partners to prosper, assured security and economic prosperity despite distractions of domestic politics and international security. This strategic interdependence amongst America’s allies, in Europe and Japan, led to winning the Cold War.
In answer, Ikenberry proposes two questions: first, how important is stable and non-competitive great power relations; and second, America’s willingness, as the world’s only superpower, to underwrite global ...Download file to see next pagesRead More