Geopolitical. Collective Goods Problem

This paper attempts to place the authors from this weeks readings in conversation. In doing so, it becomes clear that Krasner and John Ruggie’s conceptions of international relations are shortsighted and problematic. However, Craig Murphy, Sol Picciotto, Cox, and Claire Cutler all have beneficial insights into global governance. In particular, Cox’s contention that multilateralism has been effective in institutionalizing a liberal economic order that should not be understood as synonymous with international cooperation aids us in our consideration of world order.

A collective good is a good or service that cannot be denied to anyone who wants to consume it, such as: clean air, peace, and lower consumer prices (all can be consumed by anyone). In other words, a collective good is accessible and advantageous to anyone who wants to consume it. In terms of interest groups, “collective goods are benefits gained by all members of an interest group (both potential, who are not in the group but share similar ideologies, and actual group members)” (__). The goods cannot be denied from one person without withholding it from everyone else (the entire public). A collective good the National Rifle Association advocates for is 2nd Amendment gun rights, or the right to bear arms, and this is a collective good because

Observation 1: when we talk about promoting democracy, there are many ways to carry out this promotion. The United States is not obligated to take one course of action. Rather, the US can alter and adjust its approach to what is most suitable for that situation. Different tools might be appropriate at different points of time as well as differing based on the severity of the situation.

According to constructivism “The world of international relations is not just the world of material capabilities and materialistic opportunities it is also a social world”. Constructivists believe that actor states are occupied with both normative and material factors. They do not deny that the material world shapes their structure, but they believe that through reflections and discourse, actor states are malleable and influenced by each other. Constructivism thus deals with the process through which principled ideals become social norms. In being so, constructivism becomes a critical component for the international recognition of a state. This becomes crucial for actors, as the internationalization of social norms will ensure compliance over external pressure. Thus, democracy promotion can be subsumed under the socialization and internalization by actors. The persistence of democratic international institutions after the cold war as well as the mass identification of states as democracies and the absence of a strong alternative political ideology have contributed to a process of socialization promoting democratic cooperation. Therefore, after the Cold

The international political economy can be defined as having three different ideologies, Liberalism, Mercantilism, and Marxism. I personally believe the economic liberalism ideology is superior to the others due to its success. In order to understand why economic liberalism is the most convincing ideology of the international political economy we must look not only at the core principles of said ideologies but towards the history of the international political economy and the flaws and shortcomings of them.

Global Political Economy is essentially a study of a political battle between the winners and losers of global economic exchange. In fact, understanding global economy relies on a clear knowledge of the process of political competition. Political power possessed by actors regulates economic activity and in turn this creates the basis for and affects political power. Through, critical analysis of the concept of global political economy it becomes clear that there are three prominent theories that form GPE, mercantilism, economic liberalism and Marxism.

A common good is defined by the fact that it is beneficial for a whole society, not just for a certain individual, as in the case of private propriety (Lee, 2015). The common good is based on the belief that certain goods (as security) can be obtained only collectively and through political means. If in a society formed of a multitude of individuals we would have only private propriety, in time the economic power would concentrate in the hands of a few and the life of the many would be unbearable. Let’s just think to a poor individual which would not have the power to buy for itself a propriety, or would not even be capable to move freely in the world because the freedom of movement would imply that he has to pay taxes when crossing the proprieties of others.

The future of Earth and democracy is in a crucial moment. There is significant backlash across the globe against uncontrolled capitalism and the consequences it has had over the last century. With this comes the development of the World Wide Web, which has brought change in the form of the Information Age. With this comes amazing new technology that has allowed movements to work across the globe better than before. With this comes the question of how transnational movements are going to succeed. The Socialist movement achieved much in early 1900s as did the Civil Rights movement. But how transnational movements succeed now is a difficult question. The threat of violence from state and non-state actors hangs over the heads of those in much of

Public goods are those goods in which all of society benefit from and are equally shared among everyone within. These types of goods can be consumed simultaneously by several individuals without diminishing the value of consumption to any individual. The act of public goods being consumed by several individuals and not allow its value to diminish is known as non-rivalry. When shown graphically, non-rivalry shows that when each of the individuals within society shows a demand for a certain

Globalization over the past twenty has become an issue in many countries. This industrialization of second and third world countries by Western Civilization creates many opportunities for the inhabitants. Not only does it expand trading markets, but also promotes productivity and efficiency; thus improving the country and integrating it into the industrial world. This process not only benefits third world counties, but also industrialized nations by allowing them to export goods to the developing world and increase their profit margin.

First of all, he explains that the difference between public goods and common-pool resources. For example, we can say that groundwater, grazing and trees are common-pool resources. If a person uses resource at once and gets benefits from it, the value of the resource becomes lower to the another person. On the other hand, using of the public goods does not make lower the value of the resources whoever uses it. He gives an unusual observations regarding Indian Village which has no clearly defined social domain or institution separate from state authority. The author observed total of forty-one villages, and he found out that people in all of the villages share the goods and services very effectively and evenly based on common property rights. The reason why this village could use resources properly is that there are four main institutions; a village council, village standing fund, village guards, and common irrigators; which have their own common property rights. These institutions also have their own rights to do such as council organize the supply of the public goods, or village guards protect crops from livestock etc. Also, all the services in this village except water distribution are financed from the village standing fund. As a result, since these institutions have their own common property rights, they cannot help but have responsibility to protect village properly. Also, this well-made common property rights of the village could protect total tragedy of the commons as a result. Furthermore, the author gives another example about grazing in a village. For example, as he mentions above, every single rational herdsman prefers to keep as many cattle as they can to make higher benefits. To keep as many cattle as they can, they have to protect them by hiring

One very interesting idea that the textbook brought up is the idea of “altruism”. The textbook treated this idea as purely a social preference. The book defined it as: someone is willing to bear a cost to benefit somebody else. Though I agree that this is true in many cases, there are also many cases in which some people are willing to bear a cost because there are negative externalities, which is something that was not talked about in Chapter 4. For example, nations join together to reach agreement on reducing

Behind the increasing interconnectedness promised by globalization are global decisions, policies, and practices. These are typically influenced, driven, or formulated by the rich and powerful. These can be leaders of rich

Every society should answer three economic questions, which are what to produce? , how to produce? , for whom to produce? The reason why a society should choose what to produce is because a product of one society’s choice is not necessarily the choice of the other choice. A society should decide how to produce goods, it is due to the fact that not all societies have the same resources, some societies may have a lot of people in them so, if they want to produce a good, they can use their human resources to accomplished their task, in the other hand societies with a low populations but a high amount of machines, can use their resources to finish their task. Some countries may be able to provide items that other countries can not, because

The author has been able to fulfill the target of the book, which is to test and answer the questions raised by critics through the provision of evidence of the reason no democracy exists at the present. The author presents the arguments in a chronological way that gives a better understanding of the past, today, and prospective future of democracy. The root of the present democracy is stated in the book and lays the basis of the other arguments in the book. Dahl argues that there are conditions that any state should attain in order for it to be considered as a democratic