Politics of International Economic Relations - Essay Example

Running head: Politics of International Economic Relations Politics of International Economic Relations Insert Insert Grade Insert Name 17 May 2012 Politics of International Economic Relations The politics of international economic relations focuses on several theories that have prevailed over time and evolved to suit the ever changing environment. Marxist theories were the foremost reliable premises, which formed the basis of politics of international relations. In essence, the Marxist theories, which began with classical Marxism, predicted the development and prevalence of capitalism and capitalist imperialism whereby vast areas of the world will remain undeveloped until being developed by capitalism. On this premise, Marx agreed with modern thinkers of the Marxist hypothesis on the economics of capitalism and imperialism. Marx believed in the inevitable development of capitalism that will sprout from western countries and spread all over the globe through imperialism. This premise thus describes imperialism as a means of expanding capitalism to other parts of the world. Marx along with Engels focused much on the class struggle between the dominant and the subordinate and provided little on development. Marx’s concern was the manner in which capitalism was created in the first world applied to comparative studies, though the basis of Marxist development premises emerge from classical Marxism. In essence, Marx preferred the evolutionary perspective because he perceived the eventual expansion towards capitalism. Neo-Marxist theories endeavour to extend the boundaries of application of Marxist hypothesis primarily basing on capitalism (Erckel, 2009, p. 32). As a result, Marxist along with Neo-Marxist premises opposes the liberal notions of state conflict and collaboration by concentrating on the economic and material parameters. This premise endeavours to assert that economic parameters reign over other issues, thus making the class the core essence of the study. The Marxist perspective contends that the international arrangement is a combined capitalist complex in the chase for capital accumulation. Hence, colonization was significant in availing resources in the form of raw materials and avenues for export, while decolonization symbolized fresh avenues via the course of independence. Liberal and neoliberal theories, on the other hand, insist on the total absence of government interference in economic affairs (Renggel, 2000, p. 65). The foundation of this concept is that the forces of demand and supply and other economic factors should be allowed to play out independently without influence. The neoliberal hypotheses describe government involvement as a great hindrance to economic activity. Marxist and neo Marxist theories conflict with liberal and neoliberal theories, because the Marxist premises identify class struggle as the main focus of economic relations, while liberal thoughts describe government involvement as the major consideration. Comparatively, neo-Marxist theories, liberal and neoliberal premises apply to the same subject of international economic relations though they differ regarding the core concept governing economic relation. In essence, both the hypothetical inclinations offer a platform upon which the economic relations paradigm could be evaluated against various dynamics in the wide purview of the subject. Whereas Neo-Marxist premises insist that the class struggle is the main concept in economic relations, liberal and neo-liberal hypothesis underscore the importance of government involvement as the core concept determining economic relations (Abdelal, 2005, p. 23). Hence, both theoretical forums provide plausible evaluations of economic relations through different dimensions. The international economic relation governs both aspects as represented in the theories, though the key parameters are often subject to debate, because they are dependant on the context of the situation. Neo-Marxist theories concentrate on the aspect of capitalism and imperialism as the creators of class conflict, which symbolizes the central tenet of international economic relations (Limqueco, 1983, p. 54). Thus, through capitalism, wealth accumulation by few richer countries leads to exploitation of poorer countries as sources of raw materials, resources, and market. Therefore, the prevalence of capitalism only presents opportunities for the richer countries to accumulate more capital at the expense of the poorer countries and promote the economic interest of the rich countries. The basis of this hypothesis is the classical Marxism, which predicted the advent of capitalism. Marx foresaw the development of capitalism, which is primarily an avenue of capital collection by rich countries (Miriam et al., 2010, p. 65). Similarly, Marx coined the term capital imperialism that involved colonization and decolonization. Whereas colonization presented opportunities for rich nations to obtain raw materials and their resources from poorer countries, decolonization offered opportunities for market through freedom. Therefore, neo-Marxist hypothetical leaning asserts the western supremacy over economic relations in the international sphere where the poor countries have nothing to benefit from the globalization of economic activities. Third world countries are simply tools of economic expansion by richer countries who exploit their resources and market for their own benefit. Liberal and neoliberal hypothesis define international economic relations as purely governed by the aspect of independence, whereby the economic forces determine the course of economic relations without the interference of government (Mohan, 2000, p. 76). Liberal views on international economic relations point out that it is only the economic parameters that should decide the course of economic relations. Neoliberal views further aspect of independence through restricting the involvement of government in matters of the economy. Such a premise, therefore, focuses on the automatic play of factors of economy in establishing the course of economic relations. Government participation and involvement forms the basic tenet of economic relations. According to the liberal ad neoliberal premises, the focal point of concentration is the role of government that is supposed to be maintained at the necessary level and includes the provision of essential services like security and their guidelines. Neo-liberalism is essentially a political revolution that champions for the free trade, liberalization, and the open market (George et al., 2011, pp. 102-105). The premise supports privatization of national entities, deregulation, and augmentation of the role of private sector in wider society. Markets and individuals form the basic tenets of neo-liberalism that advocate for the minimum control of economy by government forces, as private sector and individuals play the lead role in economic matters. In overall, liberal and neoliberal views on international economic relations primarily base their arguments on the aspect of liberalism whereby the economic sphere should be governed by the private sector, market, and individuals. They find fault in the function of government as regards economic relations and, therefore, insist on deregulation, disinvestment, and privatization. All these are factors that promote individual participation in economic matters, which open up opportunities for trade and economic expansion. Through little involvement of the government, liberal and neoliberal theorists endeavour to achieve an open system with open opportunities for the participation of the individual in the economy. Furthermore, the restricted involvement of government is aimed at getting rid of conflict of interest. Neo-Marxist premises contrast with liberal and neoliberal hypothesis regarding the underlying concept of economic relations, on one hand, and the dynamics governing the economic sphere on the other. Neo-Marxist theories insist on class struggle as the main concept underlying the economic market through the prevalence of capitalism, which serves the purposes of the richer nations and oppresses the poorer nations (Willis, 2005, p. 65). Capitalism is the main dynamic governing economic relations, according to neo-Marxists, and the practice that originated from the first world countries and spread to other countries through imperialism. In essence, neo-Marxism defines capitalism as a conspiracy against poor countries. Liberal and neoliberal premises describe government involved as the core concept of economic relations, though neoliberals practically maintain the market and the individual are core dynamics of the economics. Thus, liberalism calls for independence of economic activities from the government through aspects of privatization, deregulation, and open market. Neo-Marxist and liberal/neoliberal theories apply to the relationships in the international economic sphere through which both rich and poor countries relate. It is quite difficult to identify which theory suits developing countries, in the sense that the two theoretical inclinations describe the economic relations without exactly providing for a direct link regarding which system suits rich or poor countries. However, with regard to the welfare of the poor countries, Marxist theories are most pertinent to developing states in the sense that the theory is an eye-opener to the developing states to be cautious when dealing with capitalism (Arato, 1993, p. 43). Neo-Marxist theories describe the total dependence of developing countries. Therefore, through the concepts of neo-Marxist theories, developing countries can incept mechanism to ensure that they relate constructively in the wider international economic environment. Liberal and neoliberal theories are not suitable to the developing countries, because they affirm the fears of Marxists that developing countries will become tools of development for richer countries through the aspect of capitalism. Liberalism and neo-liberalism promote the idea of economic hegemony that works against the developing states. Hence, neo-Marxist theories are suitable for developing countries in the sense that they provide adequate information on the dangers of capitalization and thus empower developing countries to chart their own economic blueprints. Liberal and neoliberal theories are most pertinent to developed states, because they foster global economic hegemony that benefits rich countries while oppressing poor countries (Sally, 2002, p. 48). As a result, through liberalism, the rich countries maintain and promote their economic superiority. Original capitalism facilitated imperialism, whereby rich countries obtain materials from poor countries for their industrial development. Through decolonization, richer countries turned poor countries into their markets for finished goods through globalization. By championing for the minimum involvement of government in economic matters, neo-liberalism opens poor countries market to richer countries for trade and business. In essence, liberalism and neo-liberalism serves the purpose of developed countries by limiting the protection of vulnerable markets of poor countries. Liberal and neoliberal theories foster the economic expansion of richer countries through opening up new markets in poor countries. The premises limit the economic expansion of poor countries, making them particularly vulnerable to the economic exploitation by richer countries. In conclusion, the politics of international economic relations are governed by several theories that have prevailed over time and evolved to suit the ever changing environment. Two theoretical inclinations are more pertinent to the international economic relations, since they lay the platform for the interaction of market forces between developed and developing countries. These two hypotheses are neo-Marxist and liberal/neoliberal theories, which use different premises to conceptualize the economic relations. Foremost is the neo-Marxist theory that underscores the development of capitalism by richer countries, which was predominantly a capital accumulation mechanism. Capitalism was spread all over through imperialism, which opened venues for economic expansion by richer countries. According to neo-Marxists, class struggle underscores the relationship in the interaction realm. Liberal and neoliberal proposes an economic sphere without government interference, whereby the individual and market play out in the economic field. Neo liberals and liberals affirm that the government’s role is the most dynamic consideration. Neo-Marxist theory is more suitable for developing countries as it describes the destructive nature of capitalism as regards poor countries. Liberal and neoliberal thoughts, on the other hand, are suitable for developed countries. In essence, both neoliberal and neo-Marxism provide formidable arguments regarding the interaction in the wider economic environment of developed countries and poor countries. Reference list Abdelal, R., 2005. National Purpose in the World Economy: Post-Soviet States in Comparative Perspective. Washington: Cornell University Press. Arato, A., 1993. From Neo-Marxism to Democratic Theory: Essays on the Critical Theory of Soviet-Type Societies. Washington: M.E. Sharpe. Erckel, S., 2009. Marxist and Neo-Marxist Theories of Class. London: Grin Verlag. George, Jim, Devetak, Richard and Burke, Anthony, 2011. An Introduction to International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Limqueco, P., 1983. Neo-Marxist Theories of Development. Washington: Taylor & Francis. Miriam et al., 2010. Neo-Marxism: Marxism, Marxist Philosophy, Critical Theory, Psychoanalysis, Critical Criminology, Anarchism, Orthodox Marxism, Dialectical Materialism, Herbert Marcuse, Erik Olin Wright. London: Betascript Publishers. Mohan, G., 2000. Structural Adjustment: Theory, Practice and Impacts. New York: Routledge. Renggel, N., 2000. International Relations, Political Theory, and the Problem of Order: Beyond International Relations Theory. New York: Routledge. Sally, R., 2002. Classical Liberalism and International Economic Order: Studies in Theory and Intellectual History. New York: Routledge. Willis, K., 2005. Theories and Practices of Development. New York: Routledge. Read More