Globalization Vs Neorealism

The international system is anarchic. It is very important to notice that anarchy, according to Mearsheimer, does not mean chaos or disorder, but absence of centralized authority, that stands above states and protects

Institutionalism rejects neorealist claims that the international system is characterized by anarchy. Rather, it is more accurate to think of international system as made up of rational states that exhibit growing interdependence. Interdependence creates incentives for cooperation among states as it offers mutual benefits to all parties engaged. States learn cooperation through reciprocity or are forced to cooperate for sake of securing public goods. Institutionalists also focus on the free riding problem, which assumes that nations will tend to cheat and not do their part in producing public goods. International institutions, such as the United Nations or World Trade Organization, can help in establishing and sustaining cooperation among states by reducing transaction costs, helping with monitoring (free riding problem), and offering third party mediation.

In studying International Relations, I have realized that, the nature of International politics can be likened to anarchy. This is because in International relations there seems to be no supreme or overriding authority which establishes and maintains rules or laws in international affairs. All States appear to behave in their own interests.

Globalization is the process by which different societies and cultures integrate through a worldwide network of political ideas through transportation, communication, and trade. Generally, globalization has affected many nations in various ways; economically, politically, and socially. It is a term that refers to the fast integration and interdependence of various nations, which shapes the world affairs on a global level. Simply put; globalization is the world coming together. In this essay I will discuss multiple perspectives on globalization through the analysis of these three sources.

The Neoliberalism phase of globalization that has been going on from the 1970s until present day took place after the Imperialism juncture and the Keynesian stage; which lasted from the 1820s through the 1920s and the 1930s through the 1960s, respectively. The stage of globalization that is taking place in our daily lives now, is mainly to benefit from economies of scale, exploit cheap labor, respond to the increasingly global competition, benefit from low wages, and take advantage from reduced taxes and regulations by moving into developing countries where there are cheap subcontractors rather than manufacturing in developed countries where the cost of production is very high and costly, in other words they went global to find financial gain. Unlike, the Imperialism and the Keynesian phases which were mainly to benefit from declining transport costs, gain access to new and foreign markets, and to compensate for inadequate domestic demand (selling their product in a nation where the demand for a certain product is higher than the demand in the origin country).

Mr. Thomas Friedman’s luncheon address on November 15, 2000 entitled National Strategies and Capabilities for a Changing World: Globalization and National Security is a summary of his book, “The Lexus and the Olive Tree,” which describes the international environment for the post-Cold War era. Mr. Friedman argues that “globalization” is the primary architecture that most of the world operates in since the demise of the Cold War era.

Neoliberalism, according to Litonjua (2008) is the main influencer of globalization and that globalization itself can be described as both the effect of, and the move towards, global

"This vague phrase expresses a poorly understood but widespread feeling that the very nature of world politics is changing (Keohane & Nye Jr. 2000:104). “Globalization” as a buzzword of 1990s is new comparing to “interdependence” a buzzword that emerged in 1970s though the phenomenon it refers to is not totally new. Interdependence is a state of concern it can increase and also it can decrease. And globalization assumes “something” increasing and that

In order to explain how international orders emerge and how they change, we must first explain what international order is. We can describe the international order as “a pattern of activity that sustains the elementary or primary goals of the society of states, or international society.”3 Sovereign states in an anarchic world are the key actors in that pattern of activity that we call balance of power, and the primary goal of every state is their sovereignty and survival. Since there is no overreaching authority in an anarchic world

Nationalism and globalization are two major opposing forces in the world today. Greg Ip (2017) writes that the backlash against globalism, the belief that globalization is natural and good, individuals on both the right and left, because they don’t see globalism as an ideology. Ip (2017) argues, and in this solid recounting of the rise of globalization, he shows that individuals have not only been blinded by globalization but also to the fact that anti-globalists have both economic and social concerns. Ip (2017) continues with, not all those against open borders are intolerant, and globalists must re-examine their policies to regain the public trust; there may be room to meet in the middle.

To the average global citizen, the scope of globalization and its influence is glaringly obvious. You notice it in the variety of foods at your local grocery store, the ease at which you are able to communicate with your friends over the internet, the speed at which products from online shopping reach your home, and just about everywhere else. In an economic sense, its existence is a bit more elusive to the untrained eye— though certainly not any less present (on the contrary, the evolution of what is known as the global economy is arguably the most significant product of modern globalization). That is to say, the economic implications don’t paint as happy a picture as some of the more favorable facets of globalization, which is generally thought to be a positive thing (at least from the privileged point-of-view of a Global Northerner). To the trained eye, by contrast, the ugly face of globalization is much more apparent, and being educated in the matter strengthens one’s ability to understand and process specific examples of this; and there is no shortage of unpleasant examples to choose from: one of the most famous being the stock market crash of 2008. The Big Short is a film that narrates different group of people’s involvement in the 2008 global financial crisis- or more accurately, the United States housing market crash that is thought to have caused it.

Globalization is a process of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different nations, a process driven by international trade and investment and aided by information technology. This process has effects on the environment, on culture, on political systems, on economic development and prosperity, and on human physical well-being in societies around the world. In this essay I will use culture as reference to discuss the above question. I will look at the Globalists ( positive and the pessimistic globalists ), Inter-nationalists and the Transformationalists view points of how globalization affects our culture.

The main factor that influenced the world politics in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries is globalization. For some, globalization is an inevitable process which creates opportunities for people to make connection with each other around the world, communicate and share experiences. It carries political and economic changes which open up unprecedented opportunities for prosperity for all its citizens (Scholte, 2002). For others, globalization is a process of economic, political and cultural domination of the economically and militarily stronger countries over the weaker ones. Driven by corporate interests, it leads to greater inequalities between countries and within countries, undermines local traditions and culture, and

The writings of Karl Marx (1818-83), according to Mingst (1999), are fundamental to the Marxist school of thought, even though he did not directly state all the issues that are today encompassed by Marxism. The theory of Marx on the evolution of capitalism based on economic change and class conflict: the capitalism of nineteenth century

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.