Neo-Liberal Institutionalism - Essay Example

NEO-LIBERAL INSTITUTIONALISM As the world shrinks and becomes a global village with diverse integration of political, social, economic and even religious and other institutional components has led to many proposing for neo-liberal institutionalism around the world. Neo-liberal institutionalism implies that the state is the key primary actor in fostering international relations and look at the absolute benefits received (Devlin, et al. 2003). These international relations brings about international peace, order, ease in international trade and markets and safeguarding fundamental human rights of every individual globally no matter where and who they are (Gruber, 2000). Neo-liberals argue that international rules, laws and supranational institutions are integral in fostering international relations. This report shall highlight in detail the opinion of a neo-liberalist on having greater integration economically, politically and security wise. Theories and approaches of International relations Many a theory has been formulated to propose or oppose the establishment and development of international relations and institutions. Neo-liberal institutionalism is one theory that suggests that international institutions are the basis for international co-operation and harmony. The theory suggests on looking at the prospect of gains and absolute benefits acquired from international relations and making sure member state are honest and true to their words (Cooley & Spruyt, 2009). The theory is closely associated with Robert Keohane. Another theory is the realist theory that suggests that international institutions are overrated and state should look at international relations in terms of relative gains and should be cautious since conflict and disagreement is bound to occur anytime (Reitan, 2003). The theory suggests that member with more stamina politically and economically is likely to impose their policies on the weaker ones (Kleinschmidt, 2006). Another theory is Marxism, which seeks to defy conditions set in realism and liberalism. The theory suggests that international institutions are tools used by capitalist nations to acquire more wealth or capital (Linklater, 2000). All this theories recognize whether the state is the primary actor or not, the aspect of international institutions (supranationalism) in the new world order, assist the state to delegate, make decisions, solve out conflicts among nations, exercising sovereignty, and promotion of law and order(Griffiths, et al. 2009). Effects of greater Economic integration in South East Asia South East Asia countries are among beneficiaries of international relations being signatories to international agreements and treaties on trade, fair trade, security, law and order, and fostering peace (Ganguli & ISIS, 2009). Among organizations joined by the Southeast Asian countries are the United Nations and the Association of South Eastern Asian Nations among others. The signatories includes Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Brunei and Myanmar which have an extensive diversity of cultures, land mass, rich histories, ethnicity and political dimensions (Acharya, 2001). Nations faces challenges in terms of uneven regional developments where they face neighbours with high military and economic powers and their mode of making decisions can be described as passive. Neo-liberals argue that these countries will benefit even more in co-operating with other nations. They attribute this to creation of new markets for their surplus products, and increasing their market share due to new market points (Kleinschmidt, 2006). Moreover, increased demand for products and services thus increased profitability and promoting innovations caused by competition presented by the open markets (Wilkinson, 2007). Another economic benefit to be realized will be reduced prices for quality goods and services due to the increased encouragement free markets and fair trade that allow members to buy in low tariffs thus reducing costs of acquisition (Linklater, 2000). Although many have argued international interdependence creates a symbiotic relationship in economies, neo-liberals argue that the relationship is more adversarial (Pizzuti & Franzini, 2001). With increased threat of economic instability as experienced in the great Asian financial crisis, this presses the nations even more to come together and agree on appropriate methods to counter the threat (Ganguli & ISIS, 2009). At a time when international relations between these nations were adopted and paid off was due to China’s Cultural Revolution, domestic insurgences, which destabilized the stock markets, disrupted the supply chains, and inflation shot up (Acharya, 2001). More economic gains can be realized by integrating modern technology in the way people transact and do business and developing diverse transport and telecommunication infrastructures between the Southeast Asian countries (Wilkinson, 2007). Thus, reducing transport costs, communication costs, reduce the instances of breach of safety and security and opening up the region to great economies like China, Australia, Europe, Middle East and Western Nations (Ganguli & ISIS, 2009). International co-operation among these member states will help increase accountability of economic institutions like financial accounting, processes like inflation, deflation, development economically, and curbing monopolization, bureaucracy, and stagnation of economies caused by lack of innovation (Acharya, 2001). Greater economic integration is beneficial, in that, powerful economies can help aid weak economies especially during hard economic and financial times (Lawson, 2002). Effects of greater political Integration in South East Asia Although most international institutions are initially formed for security and economic dimensions, they later on take a political dimension (Deutsche, 2006). Political dimensions are sometimes taken where member countries will support those who support their member states and take the offensive to those that are not allies to their member state (Acharya, 2001). Among factors that Southeast Asian countries should take into account when implementing international institutions, regional co-operation and deciding what type of political dimension to take are increased integration economically (Linklater, 2000). According to neo-liberals, they should furthermore, consider the security risk involved in getting into such ventures and the probability of having international spill over and making sure they have an understanding on the rules, regulations and procedures to be taken when solving problems and making decisions that affect any member state (Hook, 2005). Southeast Asian nations are bound to benefit greatly politically from integrating themselves internationally as suggested by neo-liberals. They argue that member state are going to have political backing from each other, put or remove political sanctions on member state that does not obey the set rules, propel political expectations (Cooley & Spruyt, 2009). Member state that violates fundamental human rights of its subjects through dictatorial leadership, can be indicted, sanctioned politically or refused to participate in international political and governing issues (O’Callaghan, et al. 2008). International political integration in Southeast Asia is fundamental to rising against political insurgences, fighting political crimes, and supporting political activists (Lawson, 2002). It also helps in giving safety and security to asylum seekers in member state, fostering peace and order through reconciliation, dialogue and negotiation among warring nations (Rawls, 2005). More recently, political stability has been attributed to security improvements in these countries. Neo-liberals argue that liberal institutionalism is best suited for Southeast Asia, more than realist approach. This is because, one member state will not seek to find faults and relative gains in others, but seek to find the positive and good side and absolute gains of member state (Hook, 2005). This leads to eased access to information, allowing formation of credible commitments, develop political focal points of co-ordination, and allow member state to reciprocate political favours and political goodwill irrespective of political system in place (Telo, 2009). Among political system in most Southeast Asia are democratic systems, military rule and authoritarian political system (Carlsnaes, et al. 2002). Political strategies that have been cited by neo-liberals to obstruct effective regional political integration in southeast Asia, is lack of interference in internal affairs of member state and international institutions in this region ignoring political atrocities and relying on traditional methods of solving conflicts and making decisions (Kleinschmidt, 2006). Moreover, this more often than not is not democratic to the subjects but engages close-door negotiations that favour political elites (Deutsche, 2006). Greater political integration can be translated to greater economic positioning, having a larger voice in making decisions integral to development of a nation or a region. Effects of greater security Integration in South East Asia International relations and institutions do help in smoothening uneven development around the world (Telo, 2009). More often than not, international relations and institutions are formed and implemented to help member state concur possible security risk and breach of national security and defence be it domestically or internationally (Kleinschmidt, 2006). With increased threat of terrorism and insurgences, neo-liberals suggest that international co-operation will be the best solution to bringing peace, order and guarding a state’s sovereignty, which is under constant threats of coup de tar (Hook, 2005). Securities treaties and agreements if realism is applied, will result in nations signing security treaties which will feed one’s national interests unlike neo-liberalism that allow member states to not only consider their own national interests but those of others (Lawson, 2002). Through empirical evidence, greater security integration stabilizes security complexes like upholding democracy, safeguarding human security and rights and allows ease in resolving conflicts and establishing legal regimes (Kleinschmidt, 2006). Success of southeast Asian countries in promoting greater political, economic and security integration relies on member states resolving territorial disputes that have been ongoing for decades and agreeing to agree on change needed and making decisions and sticking to them (Cooley & Spruyt, 2009). Furthermore, creating political stability and quelling down social upheaval. Security dimensions in Southeast Asian countries do not only involve external security challenges from other nations, but internal security upheaval associated with remaining sovereign and dependent (Wilkinson, 2007). The importance of supranational institutions in promoting economic, political and security integration in Southeast Asia Supranational institutions are the engines that make international wheels of relations and cohesiveness run (Carlsnaes, 2002). States have now shifted their focus from national institutions to them. Even more reason for implementation of such institutions by Southeast Asian countries is because; they have been negatively affected by their stand on focusing on national institutions in decision-making (Pizzuti & Franzini, 2001). Furthermore, effects of national institutions on policy making and devolution of powers, and the non-interference approach to member state’s problems has not born fruits so far (Lawson, 2002).According to neo-liberals, these institutions have helped decentralize powers and have compounded collective decision making processes (Gruber, 2000). Moreover, they help members benefit from positive spill over, increase regional integration, which leads to improved number of transactions, and ease in making decisions on controversial issues politically, socially and economically due to established regulatory systems (Cooley & Spruyt, 2009). Additionally, supranational institutions allow growth of domestic allegiance and co-operation (Carlsnaes, et al. 2002). Member state of supranational institutions that do not comply with the legislations and regulations set, are either penalized, warned and sometimes sanctioned economically and politically which hinder national developments and prevent them from buying or selling outside its territories (Telo, 2009). This therefore, promotes individual responsibility to comply and collective responsibility against probable risk. Among international economic institutions that are globally recognized and can benefit Southeast Asian countries formed due to neo-liberalism to foster international relations include Asian Development Bank, the International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organizations and the World Bank (Cooley & Spruyt, 2009). International institutions on human rights include Human Rights Committee, International Criminal Court, and United Nations Human Rights Council (Griffiths, et al. 2009). International legal institutions include International Court of Justice and United Nations Human Rights Council (Acharya, 2001). Hypothesis The hypothesis is that the neo-liberal institutionalism’s perspective is more beneficial than any other perspective be it realism, functionalist or even pluralism (Hook, 2005). Neo liberals argue that realism and other anti-liberalism perspectives cause disharmony, nations become suspicious of each other, are wary of challenging political, social and economic standing of other states preferring to engage only when it best suits them (Carlsnaes, 2002). However, neo- liberals are reluctant to show that the system will lead to competition among member state due to globalization, and some member states are likely to domineer over others thus imposing their policies and ideologies on others (O’Callaghan, et al. 2008). Moreover, weaker member state may lack the power to influence decision-making processes. Conclusion Southeast Asian countries are among nations around the world that is and will benefit from international relations. Economically, the nations will be able to increase demands for its products, increase its market share, and encourage free trade, which is a source of innovation and production of quality products and services, and effective and efficient service and product delivery. Politically, the nations will take an active role in settling not only external disputes, but also internal conflicts within a member state and sideline the ‘non-interference’ attitude they have, in quest to remain sovereign. They will also be able to gain domestic allegiance among member state. Security wise, the nations have benefited from ASEAN (Association of south East Asian nations) which unify their objective to fight against domestic insurgence. Therefore, neo-liberalism is beneficial because it recognize the importance of non-state actors, the process involves negotiating and compromising for a common good, decision making is not necessarily rational and promotion of international agenda. References Acharya, A. (2001). Constructing a security community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the problem of regional order; Politics in Asia series. Bangkok: Routledge. Carlsnaes, W. et al. (2002). Handbook of international relations. London: SAGE. Carlsnaes, W., et al. (2002). Handbook of international relations. London: SAGE. Cooley, A., Spruyt, H. (2009). Contracting states: sovereign transfers in international relations. Colombia: Princeton University Press. Deutsche, K.L. (2006). Political Community at the International Level. Kuala Lumpur: Aardvark Global Publishing. Devlin, R., et al. (2003). Bridges for development: policies and institutions for trade and integration. Montreal: Inter-American Development Bank. Ganguli, B., ISIS. (2009). Integration of international economic relations. Singapore: Asia Publishing House. Griffiths, M., et al. (2009). Fifty key thinkers in international relations. Montreal: Taylor & Francis. Gruber, L. (2000). Ruling the world: power politics and the rise of supranational institutions. Milan: Princeton University Press. Hook, G.D. (2005). Japan's international relations: politics, economics and security. Tokyo: Routledge. Kleinschmidt, H. (2006). Migration, regional integration and human security: the formation and maintenance of transnational spaces. London: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Lawson, S. (2002). The new agenda for international relations: from polarization to globalization in world politics? New York: Wiley-Blackwell. Linklater, A. (2000). International relations: critical concepts in political science. Sidney: Routledge. Linklater, A. (2000). International relations: critical concepts in political science. Berlin: Routledge. O’Callaghan, T., et al. (2008). International relations: the key concepts. New York: Routledge. Pizzuti, F.R., Franzini, M. (2001). Globalization, institutions and social cohesion. Singapore: Springer. Rawls, J. (2005). Political liberalism. Columbia: Columbia University Press. Reitan, E.A. (2003). Liberalism: Time-Tested Principles for the Twenty-First Century. London: iUniverse. Telo, M. (2009). International Relations: A European Perspective. London: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Wilkinson, P. (2007). International relations: a very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More

Effects of greater Economic integration in South East Asia South East Asia countries are among beneficiaries of international relations being signatories to international agreements and treaties on trade, fair trade, security, law and order, and fostering peace (Ganguli & ISIS, 2009). Among organizations joined by the Southeast Asian countries are the United Nations and the Association of South Eastern Asian Nations among others. The signatories includes Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Brunei and Myanmar which have an extensive diversity of cultures, land mass, rich histories, ethnicity and political dimensions (Acharya, 2001).

Nations faces challenges in terms of uneven regional developments where they face neighbours with high military and economic powers and their mode of making decisions can be described as passive. Neo-liberals argue that these countries will benefit even more in co-operating with other nations. They attribute this to creation of new markets for their surplus products, and increasing their market share due to new market points (Kleinschmidt, 2006). Moreover, increased demand for products and services thus increased profitability and promoting innovations caused by competition presented by the open markets (Wilkinson, 2007).

Another economic benefit to be realized will be reduced prices for quality goods and services due to the increased encouragement free markets and fair trade that allow members to buy in low tariffs thus reducing costs of acquisition (Linklater, 2000). Although many have argued international interdependence creates a symbiotic relationship in economies, neo-liberals argue that the relationship is more adversarial (Pizzuti & Franzini, 2001). With increased threat of economic instability as experienced in the great Asian financial crisis, this presses the nations even more to come together and agree on appropriate methods to counter the threat (Ganguli & ISIS, 2009).

At a time when international relations between these nations were adopted and paid off was due to China’s Cultural Revolution, domestic insurgences, which destabilized the stock markets, disrupted the supply chains, and inflation shot up (Acharya, 2001). More economic gains can be realized by integrating modern technology in the way people transact and do business and developing diverse transport and telecommunication infrastructures between the Southeast Asian countries (Wilkinson, 2007). Thus, reducing transport costs, communication costs, reduce the instances of breach of safety and security and opening up the region to great economies like China, Australia, Europe, Middle East and Western Nations (Ganguli & ISIS, 2009).

International co-operation among these member states will help increase accountability of economic institutions like financial accounting, processes like inflation, deflation, development economically, and curbing monopolization, bureaucracy, and stagnation of economies caused by lack of innovation (Acharya, 2001). Greater economic integration is beneficial, in that, powerful economies can help aid weak economies especially during hard economic and financial times (Lawson, 2002). Effects of greater political Integration in South East Asia Although most international institutions are initially formed for security and economic dimensions, they later on take a political dimension (Deutsche, 2006).

Political dimensions are sometimes taken where member countries will support those who support their member states and take the offensive to those that are not allies to their member state (Acharya, 2001). Among factors that Southeast Asian countries should take into account when implementing international institutions, regional co-operation and deciding what type of political dimension to take are increased integration economically (Linklater, 2000). According to neo-liberals, they should furthermore, consider the security risk involved in getting into such ventures and the probability of having international spill over and making sure they have an understanding on the rules, regulations and procedures to be taken when solving problems and making decisions that affect any member state (Hook, 2005).

Read More