Global governance institutions, from the International Monetary Fund to the World Trade

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.

In summary, the author, James Rosenau, suggests that the world has changed from the previous Cold War era. There is no longer a threat of nuclear holocaust that was so prevalent in previous years. Rosenau suggests, “the global economy may have replaced the battlefield as the site of competition among international actors…the emergent global order will be relatively free of strategic underpinnings.” Governance for Rosenau is supposed to be more informal, varied, and elaborate than that of the Cold War period. People have become smarter, technology has spread, and there is a greater involvement of citizens. As shown through the absence of a hegemon, and centralizing- decentralizing tensions, power is shifting in international affairs. Issues

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.

Globalization is the process by which the markets of different countries become integrated due to the exchange of goods, services, technology, and capital. Globalization depends on social, economic, and political factors, and continuously alters the way that the world works. All the vital components of the evolving global, political, economic and social institutions being examined seem to constantly converge and to perpetually intertwine during the day to day administration of global affairs. Diplomacy is employed to keep a measured balance between conflict and cooperation. The global guarantees of international law are placed in sharp contrast to the grim reality of human rights on daily basis and policy is dictated by the scales of political power and the urgent priorities of economic necessity. To understand how the globe functioned in the past and how it wishes to function in the future, we must study each factor separately and observe its inevitable interactivity with the other factors that occur. It is important to note that none of the dynamics can be given greater weight in comparison to the other crucial instrumentalities.

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

It is an honour to be writing to you, Mr. José Ángel Gurría. As the secretary general of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), you have defined your organization as being a “source of evidence-based advice for governments and a standard setter to address many global challenges” (Gurría). I wish to take this opportunity to provide my own evidence-based perspective on two particular trends within the global economy, and assist you in the process of giving advice on the global stage. Firstly, over the past few decades, there has been a common suggestion that some type of relative or absolute decline in the U.S.’s position of power exists. Amitav Acharya’s book, The End of American World Order, is one such example.

Violence has and always will run rampant in human civilization, from civil war to revolution, violence is only one step away from breaking out. But when the dust settles and the fighting has stopped what is left behind after humanity’s greatest conflicts? Popular belief is that an increase in violence will lead to a decrease of power and control. Despite this history shows that violence can be used to obtain power and control by removing one’s opposition.

Firstly, the bibliography is not representative of the vast existing literature about conflict, development and violence (Jones and Rodgers 2011).The majority of the literature mentioned is based on quantitative parallels between economic and political aspects and conflict. This goes against the World Bank claims that “Our approach is multidisciplinary and draws on both quantitative and qualitative evidence” (2011, p. 73). The lack of qualitative data is also apparent in the report’s explanation that it structure is adequate with theories of violence in various disciplines with the use of box 3.4 page 104 that is based on the research of economists. Even tough they are prominent scholars in the violence and conflict debate; they are novice in this debate that emerged with classic figures that are not mentioned in the bibliography such as Machiavelli arguing that conflict contributes to the stability of the society (in Jones and Rodgers 2011, p.983). Hobbes is mentioned only once page 75. This is also the case for Tilly (2003) that is considered as one of the most prominent scholars that have studied the relation between violence and the state. The main idea in his work is about what work does violence and conflicts do and make a distinction between many types of violence, what the report does not. Finally, Galtung developed the idea of peacebuilding, insisting on the formation of peacebuilding structure in

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

The Commission on Global Governance (2005) defined global governance as “the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs; it is a continuing process through which conflicting or diverse interests may be accommodated and cooperative action may be taken”. The perception management which mislead the people from the complexities of reality that the American government adopted in 1980’s, do not conform with the definition of global governance since it includes the individuals as an actor that has to be involved with the process of conflict resolution. Since global governance is synonymous to international organizations, this imply that it is the IOs responsibility to ensure that global governance is being adopted across the globe.

It is important to note that these two case studies share a number of similarities that are worth pointing about before emphasizing their distinctiveness. Firstly, both the uprisings in Tunisia as well as the Syrian conflict both belong to the arena of collective political action, that is rather than individual acts of political dissent. Secondly, they are employed by organized opposition movements representing an oppressed minority of the disempowered majority, engaged against the unjust action of the state and institutionalized violence they exert. Thirdly, each operate outside the bound of conventional political channels such that they are non-institutional. Arguably, the most important similar factor is that the both belong to the larger

Globalization and Its Discontents is an incredibly easy read that provides remarkable insight to some of the world largest public institutions. Joseph E. Stiglitz takes the reader on a journey into this world via his own personal experiences as the chief economist at the World Bank in the 1990s. He draws on examples from the East Asia crisis, the transition from command to market economy in Russia, as well as Latin America to support his argument for change in global public institutions. At first glance, it would be expected that the piece would focus entirely on globalization and the potential problems that are experienced from

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.

The three major international economic institutions are the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the World Trade Organization; this book mainly focuses on the IMF and the World Bank, due to the author’s first-hand experience with both institutions. The IMF, a public institution built as a guiding hand for economic stability around the world, has brought false