International Political Economic as a Component of Political Science - Term Paper Example

International Political Economy International Political Economy (IPE), a component of Political Science focuses on the relations of domestic and global factors that might have affected the policies and outcomes of the world’s economy as a whole. These factors primarily include the interests, institutions and information concerning the relationships between the domestic and international political economies focusing on how the global factors might affect the domestic affairs of a nation. Also, the international factors might bring changes in the manner in which information gets available for the domestic needs of a country. During the last two years the international political economy made significant progress with several promises which attempted to develop the association between the domestic and international aspects (Frieden & Martin, pp.118-125). International relations have been found to involve three different approaches or concepts that are the main focus of the current study and include Realism, Liberalism and Marxism. The realists consider war to be the central issue in the international relations that is expected to be a natural phenomenon. The liberal viewpoint is based on the individual factors of a nation and focuses on modernization in the use of technology, thus challenging the earlier orthodox views. Similarly Marx also gave his views on the international relations of a nation. The current study focuses on the international political economy and the three primary conceptions of the IPE namely Realism, Liberalism and Marxism to learn about their differences, their individual evaluations of global integration policies and the merits and hazards of hegemonic stability in international trade. Realism, Liberalism, and Marxism: The Three Conceptions of IPE: Realism: Realism in the context of international relations focuses on the limitations that are initiated by the human beings all over the world and a lack of globally presenting government. It emphasizes on the egoistic nature of the human beings on earth and how men take advantage of any opportunity that might prove his evilness in having a preference towards corruption. Thus realism, even in the descriptions of Machiavelli, characterizes the human nature as being egotistical, greedy, ever-changing, as well as cruel, aggressive and savage. Thus in relation to the international relations of a country or a nation, the nature of men being such ruthless and ungrateful have proved to be an issue of great concern. Also, the political violence in a nation can be contributed to the psychological conventions of the personal human characters of a time that Machiavelli considered to be a violent age. According to him, such nature of human beings can only be subdued if force is applied on them. His view of realism thus explained that force should be capable of making a good human being know, how to become bad when necessary, and similarly the bad must know how to become good (Donnelly, 2000, pp.9-25). Thus the concept of realism can focus on the negative side of the human nature which in turn can affect the international political relations of a country and determine the interactions between domestic and international factors. Liberalism: The concept of liberalism has been found to pose several challenges to the theories of realism. According to the liberalism concepts, economic dependence of one country on another might cause these countries to abstain from use of forces in struggling against each other. According to these countries, this would hamper the prosperities of their relationships. Also, if the concept of liberalism can be associated with President Woodrow Wilson, his views focus on democracy as a key factor in sustaining peace across the world. This belief originated from the fact that nations following the concepts of democracy were found to be more peaceful than other countries. Moreover, the liberalism concepts could be observed to be used in overcoming the ungrateful and selfish nature of human being forming the entire society. The conception looks forward towards giving confidence to different states that they would be able to gain greater benefits and advantages if they cooperatively endure with the other nations instead of being selfish and ruthless in the hope of earning immediate advantages (Walt, 2000, p.2). Marxism: Marxism would follow the concept of ideology in relating with the issues of international relations. As Marx believed, different ideas, notions and beliefs of human beings would initially interlink with the interactions between men and focus on the actual consequences of their activities. This involves the human beings to envisage their communications that reflect their behavior and determine a relationship between the human nature and their consecutive circumstances. This relation has been found to be prevalent in the conception of ideology that is followed by Marxism. Marx had also reflected that all ideas do not form part of ideology and that there might be significant differences between ideas and ideology (Kirchbergr, n.d.). Thus the main concept of Marxism is based on ideology of human beings and how these ideologies in human beings forming the different societies might impact the international relations. The Differences: The differences in the thee conceptions of the international political economy mainly lie with the beliefs that they follow and the way these concepts look at the entire society in the world and the human beings that form the societies. While realism was focused on the ill behaviors carried by the human character impacting the general attitude and reflections of the society and hence determine the factors that could pose impacts on the international relations of the nation. Unlike to the concept of realism, liberalism has been focused more on the independency of the nation and hence determines factors on the part of the human beings affecting international relations intending to overcome such issues. Marxism was different from the other two conceptions since Marx was primarily focused on the ideology issues of a human character. Marxism unlike realism and liberalism thus focused on determining the associations between the human behavior and actions and their resultant consequences. The three concepts can significantly be used in the learning and understanding of the international relations since the society at large and the human behavior is largely responsible in taking up decisions in regard to maintaining relationships among different countries. Assessment of Global Integration with respect to the three Conceptions: The three concepts of international political economy- Realism, Liberalism and Marxism- have provided significant understanding on the nature and vitality of the IPE in the assessment of the global integration (Kaufmann, 1998, p.433). The liberalists have been found to study the impacts caused by the prevailing globalization in a lighter prospect. Their emphasis is more on the overall profits that can be gained from an efficient economy as well as the affluence that can be realized with the influence of globalization that a nation is involved in. However, the realists tend to be more concerned with the profits that can be earned from the effective economy and hence can be viewed differently from the realists’ point of view. Their focus is more on the highest gains obtained through globalization. According to Gilpin, even if every individual gains from the global integration, there might be cases where some could gain more than others. Moreover, the realists do not support free trade very strongly. This has an effect on the trade of a nation since free trade provides a fundamental strength to the global integration. Gilpin had mentioned that the independence of a nation gets destabilized with the process of free trade. Also, the control of the state on the economical issues tends to be undermined by the global market as a whole and the economies of the world that are more powerful (Kaufmann, 1998, p.467). As the views of the realists reflect, fast increase in the strength of the economy particularly in developing countries, as well as alterations and modifications in the process of production and methods of operations involved in production at international levels is a matter of concern for a nation. Thus the concept of globalization has been receiving different views and feelings in terms of its advantages and disadvantages. The assessment of global integration is highly dependent on the viewpoint of the realists since their focus is more on the relative economic gains and less on the absolute profits obtained from economic efficiency. Thus when countries could relate to accomplishments of gains from the global integration the impact of globalization was considered to be positive. On the other hand, when countries reflected fear of losing relative gains, the impact of global integration could be considered as being negative. Gilpin had also mentioned that the foreign investments and monetary affairs that support the trade of a nation are often conflicting in nature in the light of facts representing who would produce what and where. Whereas liberalists have been found to be in favor of commerce, the realists on the other hand, support protective measures and are therefore careful in their concerns in regard to globalization (Kaufmann, 1998, pp.443-449). Marxists have been found to consider global integration as an immorality. This is primarily because the Marxists are highly cynical about globalization and capitalism is considered as having faults while it tries to make reasonable income distribution. In the process, Marxists would be observed to be parts of movements that are against global integration. Analysts have been trying to focus on the contributions of capitalism in the world economy; however, the negative aspects of the capitalism were also evident and socialists like Karl Marx had focused on replacing the concepts of capitalism with more enhancing and influential view. The constraints however were produced in terms of the dependence on the economy of the industry as well as the motives of gaining profits (Sen, 2009). The financialization caused by capitalization has been observed to lead to greater instability and lesser control over the economic system of the nation. Thus a section of individuals have also been found to responsible for the declining levels of stability in the system. Thus the increasing risks accompanied by greater requirements of cash inflows are matters of serious concerns in the world of global integration as supported by the views of the Marxists (Foster, 2007). Mark was able to forecast the recent global economic crisis long back based on his views on capitalism and globalization. According to the Marxists, the concepts of capitalism are contradictory to the increasing global markets and competition levels prevailing in the industries as a whole. The Marxists believe that the global integration involving developments and advancements in finance and securities have made it possible for the markets to increase the risks of global economic integration. The innovative measures had led into greater buildup of capital and more finance could be incorporated into the society. As a consequence of this, the dependence of the common people on credits and debt were increased. Along with this, the power of trade unions and restrains in the welfare of the society allowed people to become more susceptible to crisis in the market (Kapital, 2009, pp.140-142). Thus the three conceptions of international political economy- Realism, Liberalism and Marxism- can be found to have different views and opinions on the globalization of the world and how such globalization may impact the economic concerns of a nation in influencing successful gains from the different economic activities the nation undertakes. Hegemonic Stability- Merits and Dangers: The hegemonic stability theory has been observed by analysts from the viewpoints of neo-liberals and neo-realists. A state that is strongly positioned in the international system, and has admittance to necessary requirements of raw materials, whose capital sources are effectively controlled, promoting imports and having a competitive advantage over others in the market thereby enjoying increasing profits, is referred to as a hegemon. According to the liberalists, an international hegemon possesses the required economic size as well as political support that would aid the state to reduce its costs and enable easy processes of free trade and other forms of management measures. It is expected that such measures focus on stabilization of the economy as a whole. The realists on the other hand have their focus more on the structural issues of the global economic system determining the international relations. It has been obtained that the states have certain principal issues of interests that include the political issues, the national income, the growth and development of the economy as well as the stabilization of the society (Prabhakar, 2010). In the absence of hegemons, it is assumed that states would compete against each other more for reserved profits from trade and business that might lead to instability among the economic conditions of these states. In the process the susceptibility of the states towards political issues might also increase. This is more prominent in cases of less developed countries. The presence of the hegemons would instead allow the states to have access to bigger export markets that increases the capability of the nations of increasing their national income and business opportunities. The hegemonic stability has also been found to contribute in the cooperation between states. While the neoliberal hegemon saves the financial systems the neorealist hegemon has been found to introduce trade at an international level. The hegemons are known to promote cooperation among institutions that is capable of forming a prolong and open system of international economy. Thus, in the process, uncertainties are reduced, costs of operations and transactions are declined and the level of expectations from the economic performances is highlighted. Thus through the hegemonic stability, the stability and cooperation among the states are considered and taken concern of that in the globalized world can positively impact the international relations (Prabhakar, 2010). However, there are different views of analysts on the contribution of the hegemonic stability in the formation of international relations. The liberal or the realistic theories do not present their concerns on the social and political issues at a domestic level that might be spread in the political economy at an international level. The variations in the international trade practices and the difference there from are not sufficiently explained by the neoliberal hegemonic actions. It can be understood that the hegemonic stability and its importance cannot only be realized in the context of institutional organizations. Also, the suitable order of the economy is not understandable from the contributions of the hegemony (Prabhakar, 2010). Owing to its negative aspects the hegemonic stability theory is often considered as disputed and hence not supported by the realists or the Marxists. Incidents of failure are also recorded that reflect the dangers of the hegemonic stability in spite of having certain significant advantages. For example, the system had failed to respond to Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Rwanda that presented a lack of association between the goals that, although set with serious consciousness and concerns, were not executed to the level of requirements of the nation and had proved the US to be a failure in the fulfillment of its performance as a hegemon (Hegemonic Stability Theory, 2009). Thus the hegemonic stability can be realized to have both merits as well as dangers in the economic system of a country and hence can be understood to provide mixed repercussions on the international relations among different countries in the internationally globalized world. A state represented as hegemony, although has several advantages, yet the dangers reflect that the nations of the world may not be able to cope with the levels of competitions and economic concerns under the threats presented by the stability theory. The presence of the hegemony has been found to aid the economic system in any nation. At the same time, the inability of the neo-liberalists to explain the measures clearly proved to be the biggest disadvantage for the stability theory. Hence a mixed appropriation is prevalent in the case of hegemonic stability and thus requires detailed understanding before considering its presence in the world economy. Conclusion: The International Political Economy or IPE has taken a significant position in the world economy in the recent times where globalization and increasing competition are prevalent. The IPE thus plays an important role in determination of the factors responsible for the success of failure of the world economy. Realism, Liberalism and Marxism are the three significant concepts in the international political economy. The three concepts are different than each other in their respective beliefs and understanding of the economy of the world and their opinions on the improvements of the current international relations. While Realism has its emphasis on the negative side of the human nature that might impact the international relations among different countries, the Liberalists believe that the economic dependency of one country on another prevents the struggling issue among those countries to a large extent. Thus both the concepts are based on the human nature, one being focused on the evil side of the mankind affecting the decision making of the society as a whole and thus impacting the international relations. The other theory emphasizes on the prevention factor of actions of one country against another. The Marxists have their concept based on ideology that reflects the associations of the ideas, notions and beliefs of different individuals. Thus their actions would actually result to their consequences. The three concepts have been found to be different in their own respects with each theory explaining the world economy and the consequent result as well as possibilities of improvements in the international relations. Also, the three concepts have assessed the global integration in their respective manners that focus on different issues. While realists have been observed to focus on the issues in a lighter respect, the liberalists have been highly concerned with the factors affecting the international relations and the world economy as a whole. The Marxists’ views have been observed to be highly focused on the responsibility of the capitalist activities of a nation in affecting the economic progress and hampering the international relations. The capitalist views of the nations focusing on greater inflow of cash and allowance of larger lending facilities seem to discourage the smooth economic relations of such nations. The other consideration in the study has been the hegemonic stability theory applicable in the stability process of the word economy. The concept has been found to present several advantages since a hegemon state has several advantages over other states and the presence of such states is assumed to prevent the higher levels of competitions among different countries and institutions. However, the theory has also reflected certain risk factors that prove the process to be of less worth than it could be thought of. The domestic issues are not clearly explained in the theories of the hegemonic stability as presented by the neoliberals. The differences in the trade practices at an international level are also not focused extensively through the hegemonic stability theory. As a consequence of this, the Marxists as well as the realists have not been supporting the liberalists’ concepts of hegemonic stability in the context of international relations. Thus the study clearly reflects the concepts of the three conceptions of international political economy, their respective evaluations on the global integration, and the views on the hegemonic stability theory to present an overall understanding on the international political economy of the world. References 1) Donnelly, J. (2000), Realism and International Relations, Catdir, Retrieved on October 19, 2011 from: http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam032/99053676.pdf 2) Foster, J.B. (2007). The Financialization of Capitalism, Monthly Review, 58(11), Retrieved on October 20, 2011 from: http://monthlyreview.org/2007/04/01/the-financialization-of-capitalism 3) Frieden, J. & L.L. Martin (n.d.), International Political Economy: Global and Domestic Interactions, Harvard, Retrieved on October 19, 2011 from: http://scholar.harvard.edu/jfrieden/files/stateofdiscipline.pdf 4) Hegemonic Stability Theory (2009), KNOL, Retrieved on October 20, 2011 from: http://knol.google.com/k/hegemonic-stability-theory# 5) Kapital, D. (2009). Thoroughly Modern Marx, Foreign Policy, Retrieved on October 20, 2011 from: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/04/15/thoroughly_modern_marx 6) Kaufman, D. J., Parker, J.M., Howel, P.V., & G.R. Doty (1998), Understanding International Relations, The Value of Alternative Lenses, USA: Custom Publishing 7) Kirchberger, A. (n.d.). Marx, Ideology, and International Relations, Sussex, Retrieved on October 19, 2011 from: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/cspt/documents/issue6-3.pdf 8) Prabhakar, R. (2010). Hegemonic Stability Theory and the 20th Century International Economy, E-International Relations, Retrieved on October 20, 2011 from: http://www.e-ir.info/?p=2925 9) Sen, A. (2009). Capitalism Beyond the Crisis, The New York Review of Books, Retrieved on October 20, 2011 from: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/mar/26/capitalism-beyond-the-crisis/ 10) Walt, S.M. (2000). International relations: One world, many theories, Foreign Policy, (110), pp.1-6, Retrieved on October 19, 2011 from: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/sipa/S6800/courseworks/foreign_pol_walt.pdf Read More