A Marxist's Standpoint, International Economic Institutions

Although global actors can sometimes have considerable power over states, the extent of this power ultimately depends on the relative power and influence of the state in question. Large developed states, such as the US, are extremely powerful compared to most other global actors and are not often influenced by their actions. However, small and undeveloped states are not always completely powerless. To determine whether states are indeed the most powerful global actors, we must look at the relative powers of trans-national corporations (TNCs), non-government organisations (NGOs) and some of the institutions of global governance.

First, I will explain the role of empowered institutions and countries in limiting the economic activities of developing countries, impeding on their ability to survive. Afterwards I will explain the obligation people in privileged positions have to improve the lives of those in compromised positions, at a certain degree of self-sacrifices. Finally, I will critically analyze and disprove the counter argument, which attempts to relieve us of the aforementioned duties, by discrediting the roles of institutions and developed countries in the prolongation of impoverishment.

International development and underdevelopment are major issues in global society today. John Perkins’ book The New Confessions of an Economic Hit Man is a very critical account on the activities of private corporations such as MAIN and international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund and how many actions are based on self-interest, corruption and greed. The book does an exceptional job at giving us an insider’s perspective on why debt induced developing nations are in a constant state of underdevelopment from the corrupt actions of Economic Hit Men and their colleagues Jackals who deal with the dirty side of the business and political economics. Global economics and debt have

Marx was a philosopher and economist. He developed the concept of materialism to study the material things in society, i.e. the economy, that shape and affect the social life of individuals. Marx studied the work of Hegel, however rejected his predecessor’s focus on ideals because he recognized an essential connection with the problems of society and individuals and the material conditions of the society (Ritzer 2011: 21). Marx employed materialism in two facets of his theoretical work, historical materialism and dialectical materialism. Materialism is a central component of Marx’s study of Capitalism and theoretical development of Communism.

From my analysis of the film Life and Debt and my readings, I have come to the opinion that economic globalization works in favor of powerful and wealthy countries while undermining the interests of poorer, less developed countries to cultivate their own economy and establish a substantial quality of life for their civilians. In the film Life and Debt, this situation is exemplified through Jamaica’s decades-long grapple with economic globalization in their involvement with the IMF, World Bank, and various trade agreements. The reality of loan and trade agreements sunk in when instead of contributing to economic development of the country, they restricted it. Gradually, Jamaica was plummeted into socio-economic deterioration. As Jamaica’s seemingly prospective negotiations with these institutions unravelled, economic globalization revealed itself as a force for rich and powerful nations to dominate poor and less developed nations.

America’s is a low context country that values personal space, and individual accomplishments. China is a collectivistic culture, where communication is internalized rather than being relatively blunt compared to American society. With such a large barricade between supreme states, how was the world supposed to achieve globalization? In fact, attempt to amend or change our individualistic culture has manifested a new movement known as anti globalization to challenge the issue.” Anti-globalization is a transnational protest movement that is global in character and has a decentralized network organization, that is worldwide and created to preserve identities.( )” This movement is self organize and created to combat rule authority over the behavior of humans. “In protest of anti-globalization movements, large summits and meetings of the worlds largest financial institutions are regularly targeted.” Currently it is writing widely believe those in power in a globalized world will consist of the World Trade Organization (WTO) International, Monetary Fund(IMF) and World Bank. Many opponents of globalization say it leads to exploitation of the world’s poor, workers, in that

The international economic institutions refer to the Bretton Woods institutions which are the IMF and World Bank which were created after World War 2 and GATT was also created after the war and later became the WTO. I agree with the statement, due to the disproportionate amount of power held by Western countries compared to the rest of the world and the fact that these institutions attempt to press or force western neo-Liberal values on the rest of the world. In this essay I will go through each individual economic institution explaining how they serve western interests and how recent reforms have attempted to curb western powers within

Established Stanford University professor, economist, and political scientist Barry Weingast portrays the global impact of institutions in his work through a term he coins the “fundamental political dilemma.” The dilemma illustrates that any government that has the power to protect property rights, enforce contracts, and maintain basic stability also has the power to take away the wealth of its citizens. A major question to consider, then, is what actually determines why some nations choose one route instead of the other? Weingast believes that the answer to this question lies in institutions; he states that institutions allow countries to choose the “rules of the game” and organize society. Simply put, the carefully-crafted institutions of

International institutions reflect the interests of core capitalists and therefore do not essentially alter the economic positions of core and periphery countries. Global institutions and organizations are usually created by core countries and often refrain from undermining the authority of the core. Instead, IGOs and NGOs tend to perpetuate the power of the core by encouraging policies that align with the interests of wealthy countries and consequently exacerbate underdevelopment in peripheries. A significant example of mistreatment against Chile is the debt crisis it faced since the late 1900s. The USA and lending agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) declined

First, let us examine how economic policies like the structural adjustment policies implemented by the IMF affect a country. A great example of this is detailed in Ault and Sandberg’s “Our Policies, Their Consequences”, where both authors explore how seriously the structural adjustment policies changed the economic state in Zambia. As these authors point out, the terms of the loans “reflect the economic and political interests and values of the world’s wealthiest nations (470)”. It is seen here already that that does not bode well for Zambia. One clearly can see that globalization is just another way first world nations still colonize the world, but instead through means of economic and trade conquests. Now, the article continues on to talk about the kind of changes that the IMF implemented on Zambia: they wanted them to devalue their currency and stop supporting many domestic programs, social welfare programs, and fire federal employees and instead they wanted them to focus on increasing their exports for the global market. And what are changes without its consequences? Because the IMF favored the growth of international markets, the local economy in Zambia suffered greatly. Devalued

According to dependency theory, governance of the global economy has been marked by asymmetry and skewed in favour of developed countries and multinational corporations while developing countries survive “at the margins”. This essay will seek to examine the basis for this point by extracting examples from the real world and comparing the theory with the neoliberal theory in providing a more accurate view of the global economy.

The rise of globalization following WWII generated three important factors that define today’s world. McNeill and McNeill agree with Pollard, Rosenberg, and Tignor that multiple economic changes, such as the creation of financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) contributed to the globalization of the world economy. Carter and Warren further this argument by claiming that globalization has caused shifts in the modern economy, namely the rise of Asian economic powers. However, all three historians agree that the rise of globalization goes hand in hand with the rise of inequality in today’s world. Gaps in power, wealth, and access to information have only widened due to the trend of globalization. The final key factor defining our world today are the ongoing processes affecting development countries. McNeill and McNeill argue similarly to Carter and Warren that the end of imperialism generated new nations who quickly realized the free market was a pathway to stability. However, Pollard et al. and McNeill and McNeill place importance on financial institutions like the IMF forcing developing nations to reform their economies to be subservient to the world’s economy. Together, these historians argue that the trend of globalization following WWII caused factors like the modern global economy, the rise in inequality, and the development of new, decolonized nations to be key determiners in the world today.

Globalization is defined as a worldwide development, the process of spreading ideas. More recently, globalization has become more focused on economics, the spreading of capitalism and opening international trade. Globalization through the past 50 years has developed a bad reputation, one that does not benefit countries the way people thought it would. Joseph E. Stiglitz, in his book, Globalization and Its Discontents, stresses that modern globalization is a good thing, but has not been done correctly in the past few decades. The ideas behind globalization have the potential to benefit the world, specifically developing countries. Stiglitz goes into detail about how the problem falls with the misguided attempts of the international economic institutions to solve developing countries’ economic problems. Something has gone very wrong with globalization, and the purpose of this book is to shed some light on where it went wrong. Stiglitz presents the problems with the international economic institutions’ damaging policies and their effects using ethnographic field work and historically comparative methods.

Although it is right that globalization promotes free trade among the states and unites them, but there are also negative outcomes, which states whether rich or poor try to protect their own interests? These negative outcomes of globalization have made the dependency theory significant in describing the state of affairs in the present world. Poor countries attempt to protect their national markets and become self-reliant (Hewison, 1999). Self-reliance can be seen as supporting a strategy of controlled relations with the world economy. Poor nations should only approve relations on the condition that the relations will enhance the societal and financial well being of the larger population. However, endeavour by the peripheral states to oppose the impact of dependency can result in results in financial sanctions and/or military attack (Sen, 2010). One example of such resentment against globalization is “localism“that surfaced during the financial crisis in Thailand (Hewison, 1999). Localism is an illustration of populist response to the changes and disparities created by globalization. Localism gained substantial energy from the Thai King’s speech in 1997, where he recommended a self-contained economy to counter the negative effects

The subject of globalization can trigger a wide range of responses when brought up in a discussion. To its supporters, globalization represents advancement, monetary development, and promotes a better future. To its critics, it connotes greed, exploitation, and corruption. These assorted qualities of perspectives is maybe due to the way that globalization is naturally intricate and includes distinctive financial and social subtleties at different national and worldwide levels. Understanding globalization, in this manner, obliges one to perceive how these variables interrelate and impact each other. One text that makes a successful job of investigating these complex connections is Jagdish Bhagwati 's “In Defense of Globalization.”