State and Society in International Political Economy - Coursework Example

State and Society in International Political Economy (IPE) College: Name: Students ID: Date: Course Name: Unit Code: Time: Instructor: Introduction International political economy entails the reading of the political and economic organisation of the world in one piece from the viewpoint of a compound worldwide organ. International political economy merges the political elements that interrelate with the economic system and societal actions in the increasingly globalised arena that is formed and hardened by times past as well as varying cultural ideals. In this study, different authors have proposed different approaches to international political economy. The main theories include: Liberalism, Realism, Structuralism, Constructivism and Feminism, among others (Scott & Andrew, 2005). This paper seeks to understand the relationship between the state and society as portrayed by various theories in international political economy. In doing this, two key statements made by renowned leaders in the United States and England will act as a guide. Woodrow Wilson, the 28th president of the United States in 1913 to 1921 said that, “State Exists for the Sake of Society and not Society for the Sake of the State” whereas Margret Thatcher, the prime minister of Britain in 1979 to 1990 said that, “There is no Such Thing as Society”. These statements are both based on one key theory of international political economy; liberalism. Definitions Ahead of discussing the above statements it is important first understand what state and society mean in international political economy. The state is defined as a big social structure guided by a collection of regulations that are implemented by a permanent executive body (the government). The government has claim over sovereignty and endeavours to enforce it. Therefore, the state is alleged to be the utmost base of making decisions for the social system under its command. The state rejects external intrusion in making or implementing its regulations. There a lot of smaller organisations contained by the state. These organisations are not self-governing, nor are big global organisations such as the United Nations and World Trade Organisation, given that states characteristically snub their authority. The state is an opinionated model referring to the use of supremacy or the capacity to formulate and enforce regulations. The society is defined as the people ruled by a state, or the residents that forms a country, or both. A number of societies are by terrain restricted to a particular geographical region and a single state whereas others are not. The word society is not like the words state and nation since it is not restricted to a distinct meaning as societies extend beyond with different states as well as nations. Woodrow Wilson: State Exists for the Sake of Society, and not Society for the Sake of the State Wilson’s statement can be closely linked to the democratic strand of liberalism. From the perspective of the present-day American politics, liberalism denotes the Democratic Party thinking. This perspective advocates for the state to engage an active role in society. For this reason, the government should focus on its capacity to resolve societal trouble and to control economic dealings, among other matters. This concerns the political area as well as the economic area. In the political domain, the state is required to provide order and ensure safety of its people which is essential for individual rights to prosper. In the economic area, the state is required to provide order and ensure safety of its people which is essential for markets to blossom (Scott & Andrew, 2005). The state, therefore, is obligated to guarantee the freedom and rights of the individuals. These include the freedom from subjective authority, freedom of expression, right to possess and exchange private property, rights to health, employment, education, as well as political involvement, among others. The right to political involvement is closely linked to state power and it ought to be guaranteed in states that are technically democratic. In fact a lot of liberal principles are protected in treaties relating to international human rights and they persuade states to embrace free and fair elections (Smith, 2007). Another key role of the state is to enhance the welfare of other human beings in other states. Humanity does not end at the borders of a particular state, however, the bonds and duties of humanity are restricted by the competitive character of the international system due to international political economy. States are also obligated to cater for the interest of societies in other states through foreign policies. Given the global competitiveness, foreign policy may well not be based on humanity since human beings have not reached a point where they can hold close an international moral dream where state borders as well as identities have no relevance. However states can still take action for the sake of societies based in other states driven by the concern for people in those states (Smith, 2007). States have a societal worry over human rights in other states as well as matters involving relieving hunger, poverty, and other suffering. Therefore, the United States (for instance) as one state should allow some bonds of overall humanity and mull over some duties to foreigners. The guiding principle of the United States is ensuring freedom for its people. Therefore, the state should institute permits and institutions that lay emphasis on liberty as a focal value. State concern for societies in other states is necessary since one state cannot shield itself from the rest of the world. Today states are interdependent greater than ever due to advancement of communication technologies, increased trade flows, as well as environmental concerns that laid borders open hence creating a more unified world (James & Robert, 2001). These trends give the United States a greater stake in the fate of other societies, because widespread misery abroad may create political turmoil, economic instability, refugee flows, and environmental damage that will affect Americans. Aristotle also emphasised the importance of states. He stated that politics is the main way in which humans express themselves and the state is the uppermost outline of politics. Seeing as the state is the peak of discussions and speeches, and it is the outcome of human being’s top expression of sociability, it differentiates human beings from other animals. Aristotle came up with six forms through which states distribute political power. Three are high-quality forms whereas the other three are regarded as bad forms, albeit in varying levels. The monarchy (rule by one) is the most desirable form, then nobility (a few rule), then polity (many rule). The bad forms of state power are dictatorship, oligarchy, plus democracy. These three characterise misrepresented expressions of the good forms. The differences stuck between the good forms and bad forms are basically as a result of economic and class struggles (a theory supported by Karl Marx) as well as the perception that dictatorship, oligarchy, and democracy will at all times act in their individual class interests more willingly than in the best interest of the entire society (James & Robert, 2001). Margret Thatcher: There is no Such Thing as Society Margret Thatcher made this statement while talking to the Women’s Own magazine on the 3rd of October 1987. The broader context from within it was made is paraphrased below, “I think we have endured an era when a lot of children and citizens have been conditioned to take it that once they face a difficulty, it is the Government's position to deal with it or once they face a difficulty, they acquire grants to muddle through it. If they are destitute, the Government is required to house them. As a consequence, they cast their troubles on society and “who is society? There is no such thing”. There are individual men along with women also there are family units and no administration is capable of doing everything apart from through its citizens and people are dependent on themselves from the beginning. Margret Thatcher’s assertion is supported by individualism which is a strand of liberalism that gives superiority to the individual. Individualism lays emphasis on the individual. It involves a liberal view where individuals form the centre of focus in liberal analyses of international political economy. Therefore, it is imperative to be aware of the proposition of this position. Liberals argue that decisions made by individuals to all intents and purposes establish the nature of their lives, the liveliness and nature of humanity, and among others. For this reason, persons ought to be left to conduct free trade which also leads to capitalism as people accumulate a lot of wealth for themselves (Scott & Andrew, 2005). This perspective also does not call for looking further than the individual given that any person, organisation, structure or institution is a mere aggregation of personal interests. According to individualism, there is nothing that exists further than the individual, together with the society. Whichever restriction on an individual’s capability to take action in their personal interests simply restrains freedom. Any intrusion into the free will of individuals to take action contravenes their innate rights. Conclusion From the discussion, it is clear that the two statements are derived from the liberal theory of international political economy. Liberalism advocates for individuals to be given the free will to trade as they wish. Their rights and freedoms should not be violated in any way. Wilson’s statement points to the state as the protector of individual rights and freedom, as he asserts, “the state exists for the sake of society”. In the modern world this view can be applicable to the modern developments such as globalisation. Although each state should protect the freedoms and rights of its society, the society is borderless. Therefore, states can help other states improves the livelihood of their citizens. Thatcher’s statement is rather restrained to individual interests. It is all about free trade and individuals should put their interests first in front of any other interest. This is a good breeding ground for capitalism and exploitation of others, so long as one satisfies their own interest. Therefore, Wilson’s statement is more inclusive of individual interests as well as the interest of others through the state which promotes the common good of humanity (James & Robert, 2001). References James, E.D., and Robert, L.P. (2001). Contending Theories of International Relations: A comprehensive survey. 5th edn. New York: Longman. Scott, B., and Andrew, L. (2005). Theories of International Relations. 3rd edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan. Smith, A. (2007). The Wealth of Nations, Petersfield, Harriman House. Read More