Globalization is perhaps probably the most defining attribute of the 21st century. The American push at no cost market ideals, facilitated by the advent of the Internet and other communication technologies, has led to the elevated interaction and interrelatedness of people. Therefore, globalization also raises interesting implications for the sphere of international relations. How can this monumental occasion be analyzed? Globalization and its consequences may be interpreted and dissected by way of three major faculties of thought: constructivism, industrial liberalism, and Marxism.
Don’t waste time Get a verified expert to help you with Essay
A modified Marxist view can explain the starting causes of globalization however not modern-day causes, international liberalism can clarify the resulting world “macropeace”, and constructivism can explain counter-reactive “microwars” prevalent within the international system.
To start, Marxism is predicated on a critique of capitalism and normative commitment to communism. Marxism has varied strains, but Marxism-Leninism and neo-Marxism ship probably the most cogent evaluation of globalization.
Robert Gilpin, in his article “The Political Economy of International Relations” identifies four parts of Marxism-Leninism; Marx conceived three of the factors, and the final is Lenin’s personal modification.
First is the law of disproportionality which attacks the concept of supply and demand. Since capitalists can produce items easier than shoppers should purchase them, free market economies will at all times over-produce certain items. Next is the legislation of capital focus. Since competition forces capitalists to produce efficiently or face extinction, capital finally accumulates within the arms of a choose few.
This disparity will finally gasoline the anger of the proletariat and result in social revolution. Third is the regulation of falling revenue price.
Marx predicted a fancy chain response, where labor-saving gadgets would gasoline under-consumption, overproduction, and mass unemployment. However, when the social revolution did not occur in the post-World War I era, Lenin revamped Marx’s communist ideology with his fourth law, the legislation of uneven growth. Lenin asserts that the revolution didn’t occur, because capitalists had used imperialism as a metaphorical release valve. Developed nations had managed to dump their goods and capital in colonies
and concurrently acquire low-cost raw supplies. This outlet and source of inputs relieved the pressure on capitalism, allowing it to proceed in the meanwhile. The second variation of Marxism pertinent to globalization is neo-Marxism, specifically Wallerstein’s piece, “Core and Periphery. ” Core states occupy energy positions within the international system and might perpetuate a system the place they continue to be in energy over the periphery. Core states have two defining characteristics: “strong state machinery, coupled with a nationwide culture…” The periphery states are characteristically weak, and could even exist as merely a colony.
They lack unity by way of a national cultural and have very weak state mechanisms: either a corrupt and bloated paperwork or a virtually non-existent one. Wallerstein alleges that the present worldwide system is certainly one of core states exploiting periphery states. In the article, “Globalization and the Trade in Human Body Parts,” Harrison attributes the causes of globalization to a massive crisis of both “capital accumulation and of state legitimacy” within the Seventies.
According to him, capitalist states of the West faced an inability to provide the correct quantity and distribution of products, according to Marxism. Furthermore, the push for efficiency led to introduction of labor-saving gadgets and the buildup of capital within the hands of the few. All of those occurrences caused the excessive unemployment and inflation attribute of the mid-1970s. As items and capital piled up with excessive ranges of joblessness, “compromises that had underpinned the post-welfare state gave way once more to conflict between labor and capital.
” This conflict embodies the ultimate dying rattle of capitalism before a revolution topples it. However, globalization utilized the Leninist “release valve” and stabilized the developed countries’ free market system. According to Harrison, cheap inputs and vast new markets for consumption allowed Western nations to resolve its crises of capitalism and legitimacy. He defines globalization as “the institution of world-wide exchanges in labour, commerce, technology, and capital between nations possessing completely different financial, navy, and political powers.
” Since globalization has an inherent pro-liberal, capitalist bias, it creates unfair exchanges. Harrison argues that the market for human body parts follows this pattern and mimics other unequal exchanges between developed and developing nations. In this specific market, the organ donors are likely to originate from developing nations like India, Argentina, and China. The recipients are likely to stay in developed nations, with essentially the most transplants performed in the US with Europe carefully behind. Harrison defines this move of organs and transplants as exploitation.
All in all, the causes of globalization relaxation in capitalism’s desperate bid for viability. However, Harrison’s proposed causes for the beginning of globalization don’t completely make sense. His clarification via the Marxist paradigm correctly pinpoints financial incentive as the overarching goal for globalization. Developed nations, full of products and capital, perpetually search for outlets for his or her items and for natural resource sources. This assumption fundamentally underlies the theory of the free market.
However, Harrison looks to the 1970s, to the beginning of visible globalization, and links a disaster of capital accumulation to the financial turbulence of the 1970s. But, from the attitude presented in Kirshner’s article “Keynes, Legacies and Inquiries,” the issues instead stem from supply-shocks, creating cost-push inflation and recession. A provide shock ends in inadequate levels of aggregate provide to meet aggregate demand. The OPEC oil embargo of the mid-1970s, starting in 1973, delivered this effect and caused the extraordinary stagflation of the time.
Therefore, macroeconomics is partially in conflict with the Marxist view of globalization. Developed nations did not face “a crisis of capital accumulation;” instead, they faced a disaster of productive capabilities. Due to the lack of crude oil, producers could not create enough goods to meet the demand. Therefore it makes extra sense that developed nations pushed for a world financial system to safe cheap natural resources, somewhat than search for extra sources of demand. The concept of capital accumulation crisis have to be deserted, along with the ominous predictions of violent revolution.
After such concerns, a theory of macroeconomic Marxism succinctly locates the starting origins of globalization. However, this explanation delivers an increasingly poor clarification for modern day globalization and its development past initial causes. The economies of developing nations have gone through a tertiarization course of, outlined as the transition of an economic system into predominantly service-oriented jobs. This change has led to decreased manufacturing and decreased American exports. Marxism provided a convincing argument in the Seventies and early Nineteen Eighties, when America had a large trade surplus and a minor commerce deficit.
However, America’s trade deficit has ballooned to astronomical proportions because the shift away from manufacturing has turn into extra pronounced. Therefore, the concept of developed nations, or core states, exploiting and preying upon growing nations, or periphery states, for markets no longer is smart. What can explain globalization in the Nineties through the trendy day? With the rise of East Asian NICs, as Steven Haggard’s article names them, and growing nations like India and China, rich nations have grown more and more dependent on their low cost goods.
As these poorer manufacturing-based powers rise, they hold far more power on the world stage. Huntington helps this assertion in his article, “The Clash of Civilizations,” stating that “non-Western civilizations now not remain the objects of history…but be part of the West as the movers and shapers of historical past. ” This non-Western empowerment deeply contradicts all strains of Marxism, which comprise some rich-poor exploitative component. Neo-Marxism and Harrison’s elementary argument places globalization within the context of rich nations utilizing capitalism and unequal exchanges to take benefit of poorer nations.
However, core states of financial power no longer completely dictate the foundations of the sport, and use periphery states as dumping grounds for goods. Instead, the alternative has occurred; rising periphery states have begun to quickly manufacture goods and export them to the core. This inversion of Marxism explains the continued push of globalization, now fueled by the move of goods from developing to developed nations. This interaction may even be exploitative in the reverse direction. For example, America has accumulated an infinite commerce deficit with China.
This burgeoning trade deficit is very advantageous to China, strengthening the value of its foreign money. However, Kishner describes the deleterious results of this occurrence in his article, stating that it “forces the burden of worldwide adjustments on deficit countries…” The disproportion additionally weakens the greenback and erodes confidence in its capacity to store value. Gilpin additionally alludes to the optimistic and adverse effects of a commerce surplus in “Politics of Transnational Economic Relations,” mentioning how America tolerated the 1. 5 billion commerce surplus that Japan loved within the Seventies.
America has tried to use rhetoric and diplomacy to resolve this problem however does not dare to make use of any stronger tools due to its dependency on China as a trading partner. In this example, China positive aspects economic power at the expense of the American greenback. Developing international locations typically occupy the throne of power on key points; this reversal deeply contradicts Marxism. Finally, industrial liberalism can be utilized to grasp the effects of globalization. According to industrial liberalist Richard Rosecrance’s article “The Rise of the Trading State,” commerce, capitalism, and free markets are forces of peace.
Commercial liberalists believe in the use of trade to forge communication and connections with other nations. Eventually, a web of financial interdependence will kind, which discourages war. War on this environment destroys commerce opportunities, and due to this fact, will increase the political consequence of declaring war. These strains of thinkers in turn contemplate imperialist pursuits to be in utter battle with buying and selling interests. A nation either chooses to embrace free markets and trade or impose heavy mercantilist restrictions.
According to this concept, peace occurs when a country trades autonomy and the quest of national energy for extra intensive access to resources of the world. Markets additional facilitate peace by allowing the spread of tradition and understanding. This trading and cultural change finally results in a peaceful world of trading states, quite than varied imperialist nations competing for hegemony. In “Jihad vs. McWorld,” Barber identifies two occurrences carefully linked to globalization that sarcastically oppose and engender one another simultaneously. First is the argument of a worldwide “macropeace,” facilitated by world trade.
Barber makes the argument that no nation is really unbiased, connected by every little thing from the setting to pandemics. Barber further postulates that “positive economic forces that have globalism as their acutely aware object” act to bind nations together. These forces have additionally deeply eroded nationwide sovereignty as multinational corporations and worldwide banking systems lack any nationwide identification and do not reflect any particular nationhood. These international financial units do not exist under the jurisdiction of any particular person nation, which in accordance with Barber, has renewed efforts for worldwide peace via a global economy.
Concurrently, this technique has also turned “religion, tradition, and ethnic identity” into “marginal components of a working id. ” This erosion of variations facilitates a peace throughout the world, with the pursuit of wealth undermining any war like tendencies. Furthermore, Barber talks in regards to the mingling of culture in addition to commerce, describing this idea as “a product of popular culture pushed by expansionist commerce. ” The idea of globalization additionally refers again to the cultural imperialism of the West.
More youth all over the world idoloize American pop culture figures, like Michael Jackson or Lady Gaga. Foreign kids drink Coco-Cola and salivate over Harley-Davidson motorcycles and Cadillac vehicles. American tradition has permeated the entire world from pop icons to the golden arches of McDonalds; this fact is undeniable. This intermingling of tradition again facilitates cooperation and understanding between nations, decreasing the prospect of warfare. Barber’s argument is a convincing argument of commercial liberalism. The essence of this paradigm’s argument is the idea of commerce breeding interdependence.
This reality could not be clearer now, during essentially the most devastating financial collapse in over eighty years. As Eurozone nations flounder, the American stock markets dip and rise, based on news of their actions. This certainly smacks of a deep, systemic structure by which penalties for one nation have an effect on many different nations as nicely. In such a system, a broad scale war can be most disadvantageous, as harm to 1 nations’ financial system would impression the entire. Furthermore, cultural exchanges between nations actually appear to have introduced individuals nearer, because the world turns into an increasingly smaller place.
This two-pronged event has created a world the place all-out war between states is now politically unattractive and economically unfathomable. Barber’s evaluation explains each the market independence and the increased stage of cultural mixing on the earth; it also explains why wars between two nations have grown rare within the post-Cold War period. Nevertheless, a big counterargument can be made through to this idea. Many argue that although a lot of the battle just isn’t between states, warfare does still exist.
The entire world has not entered Barber’s “future in shimmery pastels, a busy portrait…with quick music, fast computers, and quick food…” Even more would argue that a lot of the world abhors the cultural influence of the US, citing it as immoral or hedonistic. Huntington mentions a return-to-roots sensation among non-Western states, with states starting to turn in and concentrate on their very own regional identities. With many countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran still practicing spiritual law passionately and pockets of ethnic warfare nonetheless current in Africa, it generally seems counterintuitive to speak of a worldwide peace.
However, the identification of a counter-reaction to the globalization can explain all these seeming contradictions. Barber identifies this point via using constructivism. Constructivism makes the argument that information of the occasion does matter in truly understanding a global incidence. In Henry Nau’s article, “Why We Fight over Foreign Policy,” he strongly focuses on the political, economic, social identification of a state or states when defining constructivism, emphasizing “the ideas, norms, and values…that form their discourse and identity.
” Constructivists consider that concepts and beliefs drive nations to behave in certain methods, usually creating positive relationships with related countries and harboring hostility toward these completely different. Constructivism does have one main drawback: it can’t make a policy prescription for a problem. However, it does usually prove poignant in evaluation of current occasions and in prediction of future events. This perspective is immensely effective in understanding Barber’s argument and refuting the aforementioned criticism.
His argument is bipartite; after figuring out the macropeace, he identifies a phenomenon that he nicknames “jihad,” referring to any violence motivated by “dogmatic and violent particularism. ” This form of battle pertains to the development of one’s id, whether by ethnicity, language, faith, etc. According to Barber, violence stems from folks of differing identities resisting the homogenizing influence of globalization. It can be seen as a reactionary event to the growing uniformity of the world to Western cultural norms and concepts, facilitated by the unification of national markets.
This return-to-roots search for identity finally takes a violent kind towards those who have differing identities. This causes the varied “microwars,” outlined as most regional conflicts between two groups, rather than states. Barber cites examples of many people, preventing identity-based struggle on the pretext of self-determination, together with Jews, Kurds, Arabs, and Ossetians. These conflicts are the essence of constructivism, isolating identity-based differences as a significant supply of worldwide conflict. However, Barber’s constructivist concept is not without detractors.
Samuel Huntington, author of the “Clash of Civilizations,” has a unique concept of the world. He describes vast swaths of land as particular person civilizations and describes conflict on two ranges: the micro-level the place small teams in several civilizations battle and the macro-level where states from different civilizations for hegemony. He does not define terrorism as a reaction to American globalization and the erosion of Islamic identity, but as a substitute as battle between Islamic and Western civilizations.
Barber contrastingly defines battle as intracivilizational, rather than transcivilizational, between individuals “without nations inhabiting nations that they simply cannot name their very own. ” Huntington additionally predicts that future conflict will grow bloodier, as a result of growing consciousness of civilizational divides and these conflicts “will occur alongside the cultural fault traces separating civilizations. ” In opposition, Barber portends a future during which the macropeace will ultimately win out; though, “jihad” will continue to be seen spontaneously.
Despite the intuitive nature of Huntington’s theory and predictions, it is just too reductionist and parsimonious to adequately explain the complex world of worldwide relations. He omits complete continents in his argument and fully assumes homogeneity within civilizations. These criticisms are eloquently expressed in Katzenstein’s article “A World of Plural and Pluralistic Civilizations. ” He voices the same basic disagreement as Barber, that civilizations aren’t internally uniform. He describes them, not as merely bigger nations, but as “loosely coupled” and “internally differentiated.
” This idea of differentiation supports Barber’s assertions, agreeing with the idea of major clashes occurring inside civilizations, quite than between civilizations. Katzenstein also references that this truth has been confirmed with both qualitative and statistical means. In this regard, Huntington seems quite flippant, disregarding empiricism for an intuitive, simple concept. Despite a smooth and logical premise, Huntington’s opinions concerning the world may be rapidly refuted. Huntington’s predictions concerning the future additionally seem much less accurate than Barber’s, because Huntington neglects an necessary side of the world.
Huntington doesn’t mention financial interdependence in any respect in his piece, regardless of its overwhelming influence in every facet of life. Utilizing Rosecrane’s principle of trading states, economic self-interest will cause the macropeace to win out, according to Barber. Globalization is unavoidable. Its strategies and consequences are ubiquitous, from the food one eats to the job prospects one faces. It has had both unfavorable and constructive results on the world, facilitating both economic prosperity and global terrorism.
The initial causes of globalization may be analyzed with a modified Marxist viewpoint. However, as the phenomenon has progressed, Marxism no longer offers a convincing argument. The intricate financial net connecting the nations of the world through globalization can be understood via commercial liberalism. The contrasting sectarian violence also ensuing from globalization could be understood through constructivism. As globalization adjustments and as America’s function on the world stage grows, these analyses will mostly doubtless grow and develop as well.