Transnational Actors influences on World Politics - Essay Example

Transnational Actors influences on World Politics Number Department Transnational Actors influences on World Politics Transnational actors are non-state agents that define and play an important role in constant cross-border relations even as the world becomes more globalized. Transnational actors are of great importance to international relations because they have a significant impact on cross-border relations. The actors include; international non-governmental organizations (INGOs), religious organizations and multinational corporations (MNCs). In light of the mandate of these actors, the repercussions of globalization on social and cultural spheres are being considered as an important factor in world politics. This paper examines how transnational actors influence world politics. Transnational Actors and World Politics Transnational actors influence debates on the policy of nation-states as the primary unit of global politics (Blanchard, 2014). Through the actors, international relations researchers have known state responses to issues such as security, investment, finance and economic policy at the local level as well as internationally (Kegley, 2008). Regardless, in many situations, the connection between local politics, transnational agents, and international issues are more difficult to understand, considering that some actors that are naturally regarded as positive such as states may infringe on fundamental human rights within their territories in the same way NGOs and MNCs may lobby for the implementation of policies which may hurt the society for their own economic gains at the expense of masses (Blanchard, 2014). Multinational Corporations The development of many multinationals across the world, especially in the current environment where globalization has become a reality is said to have an important impact on world politics (Weiss, & Wilkinson, 2014). During the second half of the 20th century, there was a general debate on whether or how MNCs influenced world politics. Back then, the primary debate revolved around the issue of whether such actors improved or impeded economic growth. Realists noted that MNCs did not have the power to influence development, since states in which they operated remained effectively on the seat of development. The contributions of the states were arguably similar irrespective of its economic status (Kegley, 2008). By contrast, liberals and philosophers of modern theory argued that such corporations had a general positive impact on economic growth by providing a safe ground for a liberal market driven by minimal trade barriers and by engaging in the export of capital, skills, and modern culture into underdeveloped states (Risse-Kappen, 1995). Critical theorists, however, maintained that multinationals constituted the primary triggers of uneven economic growth by essentially milking away resources from underdeveloped economies that were badly needed to boost economic growth in those countries (Snyder, 2013). Since the recent past, this storm has largely cooled down, for two possible reasons: first, the transnational actor is increasingly forging a differentiated response to economic policy in various states irrespective of their development status (Mitrani, 2013). The current differentiation process across states drawn from each side of the developed or developing world has triggered functionally equivalent but different avenues to economic growth and important policy debates. For instance, Western MNCs in Africa influence state actors along the line of economic growth, while those in the Middle East influence individual state actors to rein in rampant insecurity. It is difficult, therefore, to sustain a common theory of multinationals’ effect on the politics of economic growth because the actors encounter and respond to different challenges in quite dissimilar ways (Abrahms, 2013). As such the MNCs effect on development differs substantially based on politics, culture and social factors in countries where they operate. Transnational Advocacy Networks and INGOs Nonetheless, Transnational Advocacy Networks and International non-governmental Organizations (INGOs) have substantially influenced world politics by emphasizing the power of doctrines and knowledge-backed processes as the way to better international relations. Kegley (2008) cited the growing consensus among authors on the huge role played by INGOs and other charity transnational actors (TNAs) in altering the perceptions and actions of the international community in global politics. Scholars have reached a general agreement that advocacy groups and epistemic communities among other transnational actors can have a remarkable impact on education policies at the state level by availing scholarships for bright and needy students, for example (Abrahms, 2013). This would improve the setting aside of more similar funds programs in the form of bursaries and other sponsorships to improve literacy at the state and international levels. As the result, INGOs often leads other positive actors on the international platform to build common norms that a knowledge-based economy is the best for better cross-border interactions (Willetts, 2010). However, while these actors’ influences provide proof that knowledge and a systematic application of beliefs is highly in the world political stage, the more important issue which needs addressing is the extent of such influences. It is notable, though, that transnational campaigns supported by INGOs and other similar actors, which go directly to the beneficiaries have contributed significantly towards rationalization of world politics and thus cultivated a culture of uniformity among developed and developing economies (Pak Nung, & Kieh Jr.,2014). Loans to states and or individual projects funded by the World Bank, for example, are generally executed under generally similar terms and conditions, hence the rationalization of the global financial sector and eventually financial politics (Abrahms, 2013). International conditions   Realist-inspired scholarship has essentially leaned towards an argument that the more international actors and groups succeed in transforming the tastes and regulations of the developed states, the better their input in world politics becomes. Risse-Kappen (1995) argued that only powerful countries enjoy the monopoly and influence of enforcing outcomes in the international spheres that has become of world politics. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are examples of International non-governmental organizations whose global campaign of protecting populations from human rights abuses, especially in developing countries is the fruit of massive influence of the decisions and state policies of global powers like the US, UK, France among other Western countries (Downie, 2013; Snyder, 2013). Regardless, the suggestion falls short of explaining state preferences and or the stance in world politics and, thus, leaves out the basis as to why powerful states occasionally advance INGO goals beyond the borders of their nation-states. As Willetts (2010) noted, a more effective version of the reasoning advances the argument that more democratic, powerful states promote only simpler agendas which do not threaten diplomatic ties such as environmental conservation efforts and human rights protection measures. This means they only buy transnational agendas which meet their national security goals and or economic interests. In the latter argument, the impacts of the transnational forces become more or less important. Relative influence on global spheres As Kegley and Blanton (2014) noted, however, a systematic assessment of the extent and of the impact of international actors on the policy of developed countries in the area of human rights reveals that powerful states are fairly influenced by the actors. As the result, the influence is not serious enough to convince the great powers with a view to shaping their policy outcomes and actions in international affairs because these governments have developed ‘adequate’ structures and avenues through which they can advance their respective goals (Downie, 2013). In addition, powerful states have established equally powerful organizations such as the United Nations through which their can present and take a common stand on issues such as human rights, security, environmental policy. Brown (2012) noted that while it clearly helps if the political structures of powerful states start advancing the agenda of transnational pressure groups, the effect cannot stand out or provide transnational actors with reason to continue influencing world politics. The input of transnational actors in the enforcement of human rights principles across the world reveals that powerful states are mostly influenced by poor reasoning in their attempt to enforce these norms in the world’s political spheres, because they seldom enforce human rights policies in a consistent manner. Realism might clearly explain that powerful states are less influenced to advocate for human rights causes when it goes against their strategic socio-economic and political interests. Amnesty International, for example, as a transnational actor has occasionally disagreed with the United States on the latter’s terrorism interrogation techniques which technically shred whatever remains of the suspects’ human rights after their arrest (Haynes, 2012). Whereas Amnesty is consistent on the need to handle terror suspects humanely as other criminal suspects would be, powerful states have consistently held the belief that national security is more important than human rights. In light of this argument, the responses of state security apparatus appears more discounted in world politics than the input of transnational actors, especially within the scope of nation-states or across regions (Kegley, & Blanton, 2014). Similarly, the restricted approach to having a common voice in world politics by several states may be attributed to sovereignty issues and the lack of ready facts which transnational players have but are unable to implement due to lack of political will by state actors. Information gathering challenges International bodies and nation-states must usually obtain the feedback of monitoring missions and vital facts about world politics from transnational agencies and INGOs, because states are effective only within their borders due to the doctrine of non-meddling in internal affairs of other states (Haynes, 2012). This is especially true without binding resolutions of international bodies such as the United Nations Security Council and the European among others. According to Omelicheva (2009), the resulting dependence on transnational capacities is even more restricted on contentious issues such as international security and economy. This is especially true considering that transnational actors lack the capacity to infiltrate these regimes, hence their inability to contribute more effectively in world politics. Yet, transnational actors may be ineffective in setting the agenda for norm creation around the world or in particular economic regions due to the varying political will among the affected member states. Risse-Kappen (1995) noted that in respect of rule-creation at the global platform and in the treaty-making, states and international organizations become actively involved. During this phase, INGOs and transnational groups need to operate under the umbrella of states or international organizations, hence their influence by the latter organizations. Willetts (2010) noted that while the work of setting the agenda for world politics is likely to be taken over by properly structured transnational actors they are normally pushed aside during the implementation phase. The enforcement stage is normally characterized by changing principled concepts into tangible norms and regulations, prescribing internationally acceptable behavior envisaged in international agreements and other international administration structures and or endorsed by different state-parties (Dingwerth, & Pattberg, 2006). As a consequence, the basic things needed to create effective international agreements with and across state actors normally become long-drawn and, thus, the role of transnational actors seems to be less effective. Conclusion Transnational actors are important in the international community because they generate answers to the problems ailing the world. Owing to the inexorable role of nation-states in the world politics, it behooves transnational actors to work with states and even persuade them to adopt internationally accepted norms. The working relationship is, however, not smooth due to the varying priorities of each of the two organizations. For example, nation-states would rather observe national security over human rights. Regardless, transnational actors owe their success in fighting global problems to massive lobbying of the local societies of great powers such as the United States, to in turn buy the agenda and present it to the international community for passage and enactment. References Abrahms, M., 2013. The Credibility Paradox: Violence as a Double-Edged Sword in International Politics. International Studies Quarterly, 57(4), pp.660-671. Blanchard, E.M., 2014. Rethinking International Security: Masculinity in World Politics. Brown Journal of World Affairs. 21(1), pp.61-79. Brown, W., 2012. A Question of Agency: Africa in international politics. Third World Quarterly, 33(10), pp.1889-1908. Dingwerth, K., & Pattberg, P.2006. Global Governance as a Perspective on World Politics. Global Governance, 12(2), pp.185-203. Downie, C., 2013. Three Ways to Understand State Actors in International Negotiations: Climate Change in the Clinton Years (1993-2000). Global Environmental Politics, 13(4), pp.22-40. Haynes, J., 2012. Religious Transnational Actors and Soft Power. New York: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Kegley, C., & Blanton, S., 2014. World Politics: Trend and Transformation, 2014 –2015. New York: Cengage Learning. Kegley, C., 2008. World Politics: Trend and Transformation. New York: Cengage Learning. Mitrani, M., 2013. Global Civil Society and International Society: Compete or Complete? Alternatives: Global, Local. Political, 38(2), pp.172-188. Omelicheva, M.Y., 2009. Global Civil Society and Democratization of World Politics: A Bona Fide Relationship or Illusory Liaison? International Studies Review, 11(1), pp.109-132. Pak Nung, W., & Kieh Jr., G.K., 2014. The Small Powers in World Politics. African & Asian Studies, 13(1/2), pp.13-32. Risse-Kappen, T., 1995. Bringing Transnational Relations Back In: Non-State Actors, Domestic Structures and International Institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Snyder, Q.Z., 2013. Taking the System Seriously: Another Liberal Theory of International Politics. International Studies Review, 15(4), pp.539-561. Weiss, T.G., & Wilkinson, R., 2014. Global Governance to the Rescue: Saving International Relations? Global Governance, 20(1), pp.19-36. Willetts, P., 2010. Non-Governmental Organizations in World Politics: The Construction of Global Governance. New York: Routledge. Read More