Liberal Institutionalist Perspectives - Article Example

Introduction Liberalism is simply one of the philosophies of political science. It emphasises on the main objective of politics which is individual liberty. This means that it emphasises on educating people on their rights. Liberalists on the other hand are people who advocate for all the policies of individual rights. They fight for the rights of the people by emphasising on everyone having equal rights to power, access to resources and freedom. Liberalists can advocate for freedom of expression especially in areas where the government or the authorities put excessive sanctions to individuals expressing themselves. Liberalism can lead to the formation of revolutions against the current authority in a particular country. Examples are the French revolution and the Orange revolution in Ukraine (Gary, 2001, pp. 15-23). Liberalism on the other hand, can be linked with democracy whereby citizens of a country have a right to choose the person to lead the country. They also have a right to ask the government to change some of the laws and policies that they find to be very detrimental to their own lives. Liberalists can also be identified as radicals. They are always against what the authority is setting up as long as it abuses human rights. They can lead to the formation of rebel groups that are usually against the government in power. This can lead to dividing the country in two thus civil wars. Though, it should be noted that the radicalism is not directly linked to liberalism because sometimes the radicals have their own self interests and not the peoples' interest at heart. Post-modern liberalism gained dominance in very many developed countries after the Second World War. This was enhanced by numerous liberal writers who had different philosophies emphasising on human rights (Oliver, 2002, pp. 7-20). Liberalists view of International Relations International relations can be defined as joining up of different states for the sake of enhancing global development. Liberalism has its own views on international relations. It does not concentrate on the capability of a nation or country but rather looks at a nation's preferences. The theory argues that a nation's preferences determines its behaviour towards various issues be it economic, social, political, religious and cultural. Liberalism looks at the state actions in plurality unlike realism that looks at it in unitary terms. It does not concentrate in politics and economic issues only but also commercial firms and organisations (Chris, 2001, pp. 29-32). International relations groups are like the European Union and NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement). The two groups mostly deal with economic issues within the areas they are situated in. the European Union was joined for the sake of forming a Central Bank that would be in charge of making monetary policies within the European countries in the treaty. This led to the formation of the Euro currency which is being used by the fifteen European countries. Its main aim is to enable easy transactions of goods and services among the countries. More so, it will avoid unfair monetary policies that can lead to some European countries gaining more and others lose economically. The European Union Central Bank system controls economic issues such as inflation that lead to unemployment by setting up monetary policies that can stabilise the fifteen economies without making others better of and some worse of. This helps in the stabilisation of prices for goods and services that reduces the exploitation of any government through unfair price systems. It has the responsibility of looking at the foreign reserve to ensure that the governments of the respective countries do not misuse them (Emmanuel, 2003, pp. 120-145). For this reason the liberalists are very much for the international relations because they mostly advocate for fair distribution of resources within entities and thus try to make the economic status of the individuals at the grassroots level better of (Mark, 2005, pp. 56-64). Some international organisations are also advocated by liberalists as they fight for human rights thus promoting individual development despite where on comes from. A good example of such an entity is the United Nations (UN). The United Nations is made up of 192 member countries. All the members do support the goal of the organisation; to be peace loving countries. The United Nations begun in 1942 when President Franklin Roosevelt of America brought together 26 countries that signed a treaty to fight against communism during the Second World War II. Since then the membership has increased to date and the main aim now is to fight global poverty and enhance global development. It has different offices in the member countries to ensure that the countries abide by the regulations they set when they meet annually for conferences (Richard, 2004, pp. 120-156). More so, the organisation today is not only advocating for peace but also fighting for human rights like putting up policies against child abuse, domestic violence, environmental conservation and how to reduce the increase in disease infections in developing countries. This has been summed up by the formation of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) whose implementations are to be realised by 2015 (Rod, 2006, pp. 20-60). Commercial Liberalism The liberal international relations theory has commercial liberalism as one of its branches. Commercial liberalism advocates for concepts like free trade and countries being economically interdependent as a way to achieving global peace. It supports the formation of international financial institutions and multinational organisations. Free trade entails less government interventions in restricting the movement of goods and services from one country to another. Tariffs and quotas are some of the popular intervention methods a government of a country can use to impede the free flow of goods and services in the country (Dixon, 2003, pp.364-366). Free trade can be referred to as trade liberalisation. There have been so many talks that are being held by international organisations in the implementation of free trade policies to enhance global development. According to David Ricardo, in his theory of comparative advantage, free trade will enable countries to produce where they gain comparative advantage. In that, a country will produce more of goods and services whose resources and technology are cheap and available thus export the products to another country of which it will export its own products that give it comparative advantage. This is because the two countries will experience two different opportunity costs thus free trade will benefit the two by avoiding expensive production of particular goods. The problem of free trade policies is that it will allow dumping. Dumping involves a country exporting outdated products to another country that can lead to the take-over by foreign companies. In commercial liberalism as it tries to advocate for economic interdependence has come up with anti-dumping laws to protect the domestic firms from being taken-over by foreign companies. Free trade does not only involve the free movement of goods and services but also technology, labour and capital. It is a way in which a country can freely access a market in another country. Countries are required to open up their markets to enhance trade liberalisations. It should be noted that not all countries have adapted the strategy. Countries which use socialism and communism in the system of government are highly against the trade liberalisations. These are mainly the Asian countries such as China, Japan and Korea (Fuller et al., 2003, pp. 369-387). Economic interdependence entails countries depending on each other for several goods and services. Economic interdependence is mainly seen through sharing of products such as food, energy, manufactured goods, foreign debt, minerals, multinational corporations and minerals. There has been formation of various organisations to enhance economic interdependence such as the IMF and the World Bank. The IMF (International Monetary Fund) is an international organisation that helps countries to make the right monetary policies to ensure that their economies are stable. The World Bank and IMF have the same responsibilities as they loan money to countries to fund their economic projects like building of good transport networks and sometimes to fund their budget deficit. The institution is made up of very many countries and the money is mainly from the developed to the developing countries thus economic interdependence is promoted through it. Countries that produce similar goods have their own organisation to assist in setting prices and the distribution of the products. The OPEC (Oil Producing and Exporting Countries) for instance help in setting up the oil prices and limitations on the amount of oil that a particular country can extract and its distribution. This enables all oil producing countries to have equal access to the market. Moreover, it prevents the problems brought about by monopoly where the producer can set the price they want at any time and decide the distribution of the product. Thus it avoids the exploitation of the people at the grassroots in paying exaggerated prices for the product (Ted, 2002, pp.15-23). Liberal institutionalism Liberal institutionalism shows that the international relations is not anarchic but has a structure in which different countries are expected to act. The term institutions mean rules that help in the process of decision making. An institution must have a structure, give incentives, describe and distribute power, and define and identify roles. Rational choice institutionalism mainly shows that different states take the rational choice to decide and implement on the different rules so that they can attain a particular goal. There are different schools of institutionalism; historical institutionalism, neo-liberalism and neo-realism (Eric, 2000, pp.27-30). The historical institutionalism bases its argument in that factors of an institution can account for the vast differences found in cross national outcomes of politics. It further argues that an institution is responsible in shaping the actors' preferences. This can be done through influencing different cultures, incentive structuring and redistribution of power. Moreover, it argues that the path of history is very dependent in that, it is difficult for a country to deviate from a path due to the past choices and events made in the course of the process. For instance the Great Depression many countries reacted differently to the economic problems due to different cultural structures and they were experiencing the same economic problems. The countries behave in a similar manner by having the same technology, way of life, beliefs and economic policies. On the other hand, neo-liberalism is a school of thought that looks at international relations from a different perspective. It emphasises on the fact nations are expected to concern themselves with things that bring about absolute gains; economic, cultural and strategic gains. It highly criticises the fact that nations put their concentration on relative gains at the expense of other nations (Amitav, 2001, pp.7-12). Kenneth Waltz, 1979 coined up the theory of neo-realism which is now one of the theories of international relations strategies. The theory emphasises on the realist approach which is unitary. It argues that different nations are likely to behaviour similarly due to the international structure that limits them to a particular behaviour. Thus countries that have stronger political powers can end up influencing other countries in abandoning their culture and following theirs. The main argument is based on mutual benefits. Thus the international institutions are expected to ensure that all countries gain from their formation. There needs to be compromises and arrangements that will ensure all countries represented by the institutions gain equally (Erich, 2001, pp.30-34). Regime theory The regime theory is one of the international relations theories that originated from the liberal tradition. It bases its argument on the fact that the international institutions have a great influence on the behaviour of the nations. It further argues that regimes come from such international corporation where the entities have anarchy. It emphasises on the fact that despite the presence of anarchy, corporation is still established in the international relations. This is opposed by the realist theories whereby it argues that international relations are bound to bring forth conflicts. The regimes are formed in instances due to issues like human rights, security and trade. According to Stephen Krasner, 1983 defined regime as institutions characterised by rules, procedures and norms used to converge expectations. More so, a regime does not only contain nations it can contain organisations too (Breitmeier et al., 2007, pp. 23-45). It is easy to explain the concept of the regime theory using the international political economy issue. The regime theory under the subject of IPE can be explained in three major ways; liberal approach, realists approach and cognitive approach. The liberalists' approach emphasises on the fact that states can corporate in anarchy as long as there expectations are convergent. Standards of behaviour are established to ensure that the states are able to corporate. The fact that all states corporate by following the set standards then thus promotes the regime theory. The regime theory assumes that all states will in deed corporate and that each state expects the other to do the same (Robert, 2003, pp.85-87). Moreover, they argue that the states have the same interests and thus the success of the regime. For instance, the formation of the United Nations was to promote peace. Countries that have joined the entity are now expected to promote globally (Carlos, 2005 pp.23-56). In addition, as it tries to enhance global development, all countries that are registered as its members are expected to adapt to the set economic policies to enhance global development. There are mutual gains for all the states in the regimes this makes the nations avoid the tit for tat game whereby one country decides to exploit the other thus the other revenges. The theory advocates for absolute gains other than relative gains. This means that all nations are interested in individual and other state gains. It should be noted that the regimes have defined laws that state the punishment for unfair defection and how an entity can defect from it. The laws are protections to states that fear exploitation from large developed and politically established states. More so, it reduces the rates of misunderstanding among the states (Jan, 2002, pp.32-25). Liberalists' views in modern day world There are so many global issues that have come up that have prompted nations to join up to ensure that they are solved. The cases of terrorist attacks have increased over the years causing very many countries to come together to reduce the attacks. The liberalists are against any human rights abuse whereby terrorism is taking life unrightfully. There have been advocates to increase the security systems in all countries globally. This will reduce the chances of any terrorist attacks in any country. The international laws set by the international organisations require various countries to adapt the different technologies to prevent such instances (Adrian, 2000, pp.546-548). More so, advocating for such implementations will increase trust in people on security levels in other countries. According to liberalists, international relations will aid in reducing global poverty as many international organisations are guided by this fact. There has been the call to reduce debt in developing countries, enhance medical access for all individuals and increase the education levels globally. Liberalists will stop at nothing in ensuring that all individuals have equal access to resources and basic needs (Gary, 2003, pp. 529-532). Conclusion International relations are an advantageous subject to all states that advocate for it. Like the liberalists, I highly advocate for the international relations strategies as a nation can not work on its own. There is need to relate to one another to share the distributed resources equally among all nations. More so, it protects small countries that have fewer powers from exploitation by countries that have extreme powers. Though international relations has its own set backs, it is important for such organisations to come up with strategies that will minimise its shortcomings. References Adrian K., 2000. Modern days claims, political rights and civil liberties: Freedom in the world. Pp. 546-548. Amitav A., 2001. Liberal institutionalist perspectives: Constructing a security community. Pp. 7-12. Breitmeier et al., 2007. Analysing international environment regimes: Cambridge University the MIT press. Pp. 23-45. Carlos A. M., 2005. Towards a common agenda on global development: economic reforms and The UN reforms. Pp.23-56. Chris B., 2001. Liberal international relations theory: understanding international relations. Pp. 29-32. Dixon W., 2003. Commercial liberalism on trial: the journal of international studies. Vol. 5, pp. 364-366. Emmanuel A., 2003. The ECB, Pre-euro bank: The Central Banking systems Compared. Pp. 120-145. Eric H., 2000. Neo-liberal institutionalism and rational views: preventing the use of mass destruction weapons. Pp. 27-30. Erich R., 2001. Neo-liberalism or just liberal institutionalism: Europe's new security challenges. Pp.30-34. Fuller et al., 2003. Free trade, concesus among economists: Journal of economics. Vol. 34, pp. 369-387. Gary J., 2003. Modern days, idealism, realism and modernity: making of America liberal. Pp.529-532. Gary W., 2001. Liberalism, rethink law, governance and society: Foucault's bequest. Pp. 15-23. Jan-Erik L., 2006. Governance in international organisations: globalisation and politics. Pp. 54-67. Jan K., 2002. The regime theory and its critiques: an introduction international laws. Pp. 7-12. Mark R., 2005. Concepts, cases and theories of globalisation: international relations ethics. Pp. 56-64. Oliver K., 2002. The definition of liberalism: Knights of Plow and the origin of grange. Pp. 7-20. Richard B., 2004. Critical perspective of the MDGs: targeting development. Pp. 120-156. Rod Y., 2006. The global education: the main game of the millennium development goals. Pp. 20-60. Robert G., 2003. The political purpose regime theory: Global political economy. Pp. 85-87. Ted C., 2002. Anthropology of globalisation: IMF, World Bank loans and OPEC countries. Pp.15-23. Read More