Globalization: Liberal Approach More Useful than Neo-realist

On the other hand, liberalists emphasize “the technological change, specialization, trade and increasing interdependence, and the strengthening of global

The concept behind Neoliberalism is that the global market and its resources are shared equally, in other words becoming a free market economy where government does not intervene, creating more innovation consequently affecting trade and globalisation (Styhre 2014, p. 270). The reality of the story today is far from what is was set out to be,

Globalisation as described by John Bayliss is the widening, deepening and speeding up of global interconnectness. Distinctions are usualy made between economic, cultural and political forms of globalization.Over recent years Liberals have tended to agree with the statement whereas the Realists disagree with the statement.

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

Compare and contrast Realism and Liberalism as theories used in the study of International Relations

Though both theories provide similar solutions in how to gain what they want, their ultimate goals are truly distinct. Neo-realist see themselves as unitary actors, disregarding first or second images. They believe that since states are anarchic the only means of interaction is at the international level dealing with “high politics” and not the domestic determinants or “low politics”(Keohane. PI. 24). Focusing on what to them is the most important issue, security. Liberals are not unitary actors placing greater emphasis on expanding the means of interactions between states by discussing such issues as the economy, culture, capital system, and the individual. The interdependence amongst

The theory of globalization today is a field of intensive debate as the efforts towards defining globalization most often highlight its individual aspects. According to Held and McGrew (1999), “globalisation is an idea whose time has come, yet it lacks precise definition”. Despite the ambiguity of the term “globalisation,” the use of the term, according to Held and McGrew, reflects increased interconnectedness in political, economic and cultural matters across the world creating a shared social space. Given this inter-connectedness, globalisation may be defined as: “a process which embodies a transformation in the spatial organisation of social relations and

‘Globalization: What’s new? What’s not? (And so what)’, portrays the speed in which globalism has increased through many different factors; economically, military, environmentally and socially. This is an idealist analytic approach, not set in stone. This leads on to

The concept of globalization is a complex and peculiar one, failing to be definable by a single, precise definition. Centrally, globalization involves information and goods being exchanged amongst different countries. These interactions and interchanges among countries globally over time is due to an increase in communication and transport networks. Globalization is often divided into three main areas being economic globalization, cultural globalization and political globalization. All three are vital areas to one’s life and globalization is said to have a large impact on each. Although globalization is controversial in the aspect that it cannot be declared just how much of an influence the notion has in the world. Political scientists such as Muhammad Ijaz Latif, Anton Pelinka and Martin Wolf all discuss this issue in their respective pieces as well as differing aspects of globalization such as the role the European Union plays in relation to globalization, the different perspectives of globalization and the challenges of the nation-state in regards to globalization.

Globalisation can be defined as the movement toward economic, financial, trade, and communications integration by countries and their populations globally. It is a constant process and it has resulted in the intertwining and generalisation of the needs and wants of people

In this essay I will give a detailed explanation of what sociologists mean by the term ‘globalisation’ and how they have tried to explain it.

To define any perspective in International Relations, one must understand its’ origin and primary authors, including the context in which they were writing in. Liberalism is one of the more loosely defined perspectives as it has had a number of authors throughout history. Primarily, liberalism relies on the positive aspects of human nature. One of the most prominent liberal authors was Kant- who often wrote of the anarchical nature of international relations- referring to it as “the lawless state of savagery.” He also wrote of three primary routes to obtaining peace within this system, namely treating all aspects of human life with humanity, allowing for a federation of states and

Social humanitarian sciences focus on studying global political processes and the object of its research are social phenomena, which are defined as “international relations” in the world we know. International relations are comprised of many different categories, such as foreign policy, international politics or world politics. However, the central issue of international politics is the international relations. The term “international relations” has been first used by English philosopher J. Bentham at the end of 18th century. It is important to note that it is not accidentally that the term appeared at that particular time, as the border line of 18-19th centuries is marked by evolution of the international relations’

In regard to the issue of globalization, realist had a negative view about it. According to realism, globalization will only increase interdependence among states, causing insecurity (Kay, 2004). It also suggests that it will raise suspicion because the distribution of power is unequal, and it “favors the dominant international actors” (Kay, 13). The major challenge for realist is the role of power and the gains and loss of a state due to globalization. On one hand, a state can utilize globalization to advance their own interest and gain and exert power; on the other hand, interdependence can cause vulnerability which can lead to conflict (Kay, 2004). In a realist world globalization is basically a strategy in the competition for power between several major countries.

Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism, two of the most influential contemporary approaches to international relations, although similar in some respects, differ multitudinously. Thus, this essay will argue it is inaccurate to claim that Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism have far more similarities than differences. By contrast, it will contend that there are in fact more of the latter than there are of the former, on issues such as the nature and consequences of anarchy, the achievement of international cooperation, and the role of international institutions. Moreover, it will be structured in such a way so as to corroborate this line of argument. In practice, that is to say, this essay will first of all define what is meant by Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism.