Dependency Reduces Conflict

There is an apparent trend of passivity between countries that maintain capitalistic economies and actively participate in economic relations with each other. This observation can then be mistakenly attributed to the fact that the nations are capitalist, but in this case correlation does not equal causation. The capitalist peace theory, which attempts to signal capitalism as the cause of observed peace, does not serve as a method of explaining this phenomenon because capitalist nations tend to also be powerful nations. Using a realist interpretation, powerful nations have no interest in entering war, and their interests revolve around expanding their own resources. Capitalist peace policy should especially not be pursued, because history has shown that when large nations attempt to establish large open trade deals with smaller nations, this lead to the developing nations being overpowered, and the citizenry devastated by the mass capabilities of larger countries.

In Held and McGrew writings they discussed the globalist and sceptics economic debate on globalization. The globalist and the sceptics both gave their own perspective on how globalization relates to economy. The sceptic believes the global economy is far from being integrated. From a sceptical analysis, the world economy activity is mainly focused on Europe, Asia-Pacific and the Americas. Thus, “This tribalization of the world economy is associated with a growing tendency towards economic and financial interdependence within each of these three zones at the expense of integration between them” (Held and McGrew p. 20) Generally speaking there cannot be integrated global economy if only dominant countries are profiting and only working with

According to the hegemonic stability theory, “a hegemonic power is necessary to support a highly integrated world economy.” (Nau 2007, 280) Nau explains that as long as there is a relative distribution of power, no one power can affect the system as a whole (280). When there are several equally competitive countries, the global economy reaches the model of a perfect market. Each state acts according to their self-interest, and such behavior leads to higher gains for everyone because “competition maximizes efficiency” (Nau 2007, 280) in a perfect market. However, there is no place for violence in a perfect market because a hegemon assures security by deploying a police force (Nau 2007, 280). Since there is usually no such force in the international system, many competitive nations have to fear violence. This is what the realists meant when they stated that in the multipolar world, nations cannot be sure about alliances. In addition, the United States and the Soviet Union were the two great powers after World War II; thus, they developed an example of a bipolar world, in which there are separate and self-governing “half-world” economies that includes very little trade with each other (Nau 2007, 280).

In being so, liberalism possesses both economic and political components. Economic liberalism argues that, increasing economic interdependence would lead to a more peaceful international realm. Political liberalism bases itself on the belief that ‘A just world order assumes the establishment of republics ’. Thus, political liberalism as practiced by the United States during Cold War becomes a critical proponent of democracy promotion by noting that overlapping national interests will allow for a tamer international environment, engendering the notion that democracies do not engage in wars. Although democracy as interpreted by liberal theory on its own does not lead to free market, it may create the necessary infrastructure for such an event to occur. The promotion of democracy, to a great extent, increases economic interdependence through the alignment of core national values and therefore decreasing the probability of hegemony between the states. However, The notion of liberalism was undermined in the literature of the United States foreign policy after the Cold War. Even though the states were economically interdependent during the Cold War yet they engaged in rivalry for resources to the extent that if, assumingly, the “World Trade Organization” came to be perceived as a corrupt institution,

Robert O. Keohane, “From After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy,” in

Another core element in the liberal vision in economic interdependence, as shown by Scott Burchill: with the existence of free markets and the possibility of free trade and its potential to create national wealth,” states would expand their range of contacts and levels of understanding, encouraging international friendship and breaking down the divisions between states, uniting them”₉. Meaning that trade creates mutual dependence between states which fosters understanding and finally reduces conflict.

An economic integration, established on global, continental or regional level, is not a newborn phenomenon. Ever since the voyages of Marco Polo in 1260, (Latham, 1958) the collaboration and integration of world economies- through trade, movements of factors of production and transmission of economically effective knowledge and technology- has been continuously increasing. (Masson, 2000) The overall process of globalisation and economic integration has been in most cases globally beneficial, but alongside winners it had also created losers, and the progression of economic integration has neither always advanced smoothly nor has it been advantageous to all whom it had affected. The ideas and their implementation leading towards greater

Although there is still not agreement on a common definition of this phenomenon, in this paper I will accept the one developed by R.M. Joshi (2009). He identifies, indeed, Economic Globalization as “the increasing economic integration and interdependence of national, regional and local economies across the world through an intensification of cross-border movement of goods, services, technologies and capital”

This relates to embedded liberalism as the Marshall plan could be seen as feature of as it relates to states accepting preconditions from the USA that represent the key principals of embedded liberalism. More of this will be discussed on this the the later parts of this essay. The neoliberal theory on hegemonic stability takes on a different factor as to neorealism, public goods. waltzIn a global market, the provision of public goods will be the responsibility of the hegemon. This is because when power is evenly distributed between states, the incentive to produce public goods is diminished. Free-riding diminishes this incentive as states are unlikely to bear the costs of these public goods. Public goods in this context could be seen as a well organised international system of free trade or possibly the provision of financial aid in the time of crisis. Both of these being features of embedded liberalism. These goods will be provided by the hegemon because the size of the hegemon ensures that benefits provided by the free goods outweighs the costs. Although Waltz theory is the more popular of the two theories of hegemonic stability, Ruggie believes this does not explain enough. He believes that the structure of the internationalisation of political authority is not just dependant on power, but also on social

Since International Relations has been academically studied Realism has been the dominant theory of world politics. The theory’s inability to explain the end of the Cold War, however, brought strength and momentum to the Liberalism theory. Today Realism and Liberalism are the two major paradigms of International Relations. The aforementioned theories focus on the international system and the external factors that can lead to two phenomena - conflict and cooperation. Realism believes that as a result of anarchy and the security dilemma, conflict is inevitable. Liberalism argues that this conflict can be overcome through cooperative activities amongst states and international organizations. This paper will explore as well as compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of both theories. It will also debate which of the two theories is more valuable in the

Angell repeatedly argues that no economic benefits can come from war, not even for the victorious, as costs of rebuilding, damage and preparation for war outweigh the benefits. Moreover, he also posits that rapid development has made countries increasingly interdependent. Angell highlights how it would be unbeneficial to go to war with someone who you depends on for certain trades in the modern era and suggests that to go to war would be to commit economic

The topic of interdependence has been an issue since the inception of the state system and more prominently after the Cold War. Political scientists have debated its significance and vitality in a realism dominated discourse for years. However many alternative theories have surfaced supplying theorists with new material to analyze the question of conflict and interdependence. Interdependence does reduce the likelihood of conflict.

The trajectory of global politics has dramatically changed after the end the World War II and after the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. In fact, many countries around the globe became economically competitive, politically stable, and culturally optimistic. As the result, many nations started affirming themselves on the global arena while others continued to struggle internally and beyond the borders. The combinations of these factors have perhaps led to interdependency.

When looking at International Relations, there are two main political theories that tell us why countries function and work the way they do. Realism is a school of thought that defines international relations in terms of power, whereas Liberalism is a school of thought that argues that with the correct institutions, states can independently function resulting in growth and minimal conflict (Goldstein 43). While both theories have their strengths and weaknesses, truth and rationale lie behind both as well. Today’s world politics are better defined by

Globalization is supposed to bring the world’s nations into a single global economy through international organizations, such as the WTO and the IMF: “Globalization refers to the global integration of many formerly national economies into one global economy (Daly, 2017, p.1). These neoclassical methods of economics were supposed to be followed by Hilary Clinton and other Democrats, which reveals the failure of this economic system: Hillary Clinton and the Democratic establishment failed to learn the lesson (Daly, 2017, p.1). However, Clinton utilized globalization as a way to advance greater corporatist power over the world economy, which resulted in massive economic disparity around the world. Trump is also exhibiting these same behaviors, which make the term “globalization” an incorrect summation of Clinton and the Democrats. Although, Trump ran for president “on an anti-globalization platform”, it is evident that the internationalism is the dominant form of economics being practiced in both political parties, and not just by Trump (Stiglitz , 2017, p.89). In this manner, Daly (2017) also misrepresents the “globalization” identity of the Democratic Party, as Clinton is merely acting as a “closet corporatist” in the mode of Trump. Certainly, Clinton posed as a “globalist” during her presidential campaign, but she was, invariably, a corporatist that utilized American corporate power in contrast to the tenets of globalization that promote a balanced and regulated global economy for the greater good of