How China Sees America Summary

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

Within all nation-states, a political regime is imposed which attempts to protect the individual interests of that country, however, it can also have the potential to limit that countries economic development and the United States and China are no exception to this rule. This essay will discuss, analyse and contrast the distinct regimes of each nation with regard to their positive and negative aspects from the viewpoint of a potential foreign investor wishing to do business in either of these states. Each

The world is undoubtedly Eurocentric and favors Western interests, with Western nations having a domineering advantage over developing nations in relation to politics and the global economy. For example, the World Bank’s voting power is distributed

Countries often believed that joining international institutions particularly the Bretton words - IMF, World Bank or WTO would benefits them from the pressure of developed nations, provide information regarding various issues and help them develop effective monitoring and cooperating policies. However, recent evidence has mounted that these institutions do not proof to be so beneficial for the developing countries.

Globalization challenges scholars who advocate a significant developmental function of the state, not so much be restraining the state 's proper responsibility. By rewarding meticulous structures, developmental states have concentrated on the central state or have probe state-society relations. Their scrutiny of relations within states provides much room for perfection, and they have only begun to value the potential assistance of local governments in promoting economic development. The aim of this paper is twofold. First, it argues about how globalization has consequences for intergovernmental relations. In particular, it focuses on examining China and India to advance our comprehension of how globalization affects economy

Developed nations trumpet the claim that the answer to developing nations’ international trade issues is untrammeled or open market activity as opposed to government intervention by developed nations’ governments. This begs the question as to what extent the governments of developed nations are or should be responsible for supporting developing countries’ growth in international trading markets. Often the protectionist actions of developed nations’ governments to enhance their own international trading activities are the very hindrances faced by the developing countries, so much so that the developed nations are morally obligated to support the developing countries to offset the roadblocks created by these same developed countries with tariffs, quotas and other trade barriers.

The Washington Consensus was developed by John Williamson as a series of recommended policy reforms, supported by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the US Treasury. It has now become a form of checklist for reforms that are promoted to developing countries in order to achieve certain economic conditions that would arguably make them more likely to experience economic growth and development (Noah Zerbe 2013). The rise of the BRICS countries is a significant topic in the international arena as the previous distinction between the developed and developing worlds was the considerable gap in the levels of economic growth and development experienced by both, however, the BRICS are now argued to be creating a shift in economic power from the North and West, to the South and East of the world (Ikenberry 2011). This is due to the strength of their economic growth and development in the past few decades that have led speculators to argue that the BRICS are laying the groundwork for a new world order (Ikenberry 2011). The focus of this essay will therefore concern whether the BRICS achieved this feat through the implementation of policies recommended by the Washington Consensus, or whether it was due to more unorthodox reforms; with emphasis being placed on the cases of China, Brazil, India, and Russia.

A. There has recently been a lot of talk in the Internal Relations community about the steep rise that the BRICS nations are making in terms of economic might and overall global importance. China and India are among the countries that have made the most improvement. The other pertinent question that has been dogging experts for the past few years is what this upheaval means for the West, i.e. liberal world order as we know it today. It is clear that these rising nations want to assert themselves in the international arena. China and India have

Since the 1970s, the People’s Republic of China has acquired membership of various institutions of international cooperation, the most noticeable ones are the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in 1971 and the WTO in 2001. China has been recognized as an important state actor in regards to global governance. Nonetheless, China in many ways is different from these westerns powers, especially the United States, who has significantly influenced and shaped global governance since the late twenty century. The United States and its western partners prefer a strong role for liberal democratic values in international affairs, and they spare no effort to expand the liberal democracy-related norms in the international community. On the contrary, Chinese government, as a itself non-democratic body, is apparently not a supporter of liberal democracy, neither internationally nor domestically. its economy remains firmly controlled by the state although partly liberalized since the “Reform and Open” in 1979.

Susanne Soederberg argues that the driving force behind globalization of the economy has been the actions of states, and not necessarily global economic institutions, such as the International Monetary Funds. Soederberg explains that to overcome systemic crises, states must restructure the configuration of power, material wealth, and ideational practices, as crises do not occur because of the globalised market, but rather within and between states (Soederberg, 2010). Using examples of Mexico and Thailand, Soederberg argues that the global capital cannot be blamed for

Over the last half-century or so, Asia has emerged out of the dust of World War II into a dynamic and growing global capital. Its countries, which were once poorer than sub-Saharan Africa, are now economically strong and vibrant players in the global economy who are capturing market shares up and down the global value chain. China, Japan, and India are three of the largest economies in the world today, and Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea are some of the most innovative economies as measured by patent activity. Moreover, while the United States and Europe stagnated in the Great Recession of 2008, China—through its massive fiscal muscle—was able to cushion its vast economy and maintain a robust GDP growth rate of 11% that year. Hence, far from the economically backwards and impoverished basket case that it was fifty years ago, Asia is now at the forefront of the global economic—and by extension of its growing economic might—political landscape as well. Some may even say that the 21st century is Asia’s century, and they are right to a certain extent. The 21st century is Asia’s century, but it is also one in which the United States will continue to play a leading role.

“According to IPE specialists focusing on this approach (economic national perspective) description of the global economy suggest the concerns of the most powerful nations”. (O’Brien and Williams 2013 p. 10.)

International trade is an often-vexing field of study. The breadth of its scope, and the multitude of political, socio-economic, and strategic components that influence its inputs and outputs, can seem staggeringly huge, frustrating attempts to narrow in on and accurately study a select topic. One commonly observed trend is that of economic globalization, the phenomenon wherein countries’ economic situations, bolstered by increased international economic cooperation, can become significantly dependent on other countries. Despite its seemingly inexorable nature, however, globalization - and international economic cooperation in general - is not a fixed variable in international affairs, nor has it ever been. Many kinds of factors play a large role in determining the success or failure of efforts to organize international cooperation. On the domestic level, these chiefly consist of public influence and economic and developmental circumstances, while on the international level, factors including state sovereignty and political systems and institutions are highly influential. The worldwide existence of domestic sector-inclined protectionist tendencies and international competitiveness, each to various degrees, will undoubtedly continue in the future; however, the interconnectedness of international economic cooperation, bolstered by international institutions,

Firstly, present economic globalization has opened the door of opportunities for most of the countries. Though developed countries are making most profit from this opportunity but developing and even least developing countries are also exploiting the mutual benefit. Due to open competition local productions in less developed and developing countries are achieving better performance and standard. Economic globalization is also creating employment opportunities in those countries. On the other hand states are losing their monopoly on tax collection due to mismatch of economic and political jurisdiction, and internet-based trade. Thus, on one hand economy has become priority for states, and on the other hand states losing part of its control on economy. Therefore, economic globalization is exerting its authority on political and state power.

Economic globalization remains an essential defining characteristic of our age and a way that is transforming the parameters of the global power and national state relations. Nevertheless, it is also unpredictable, uneven, and a different phenomenon. Asia-Pacific has been at the centre of globalization for the past 60 years. The region has benefited from globalization process and geopolitical merits, such as the Cold War, in manner in which other developing regions never experienced. Nevertheless, the regions international relations have also been considered paradoxical. During the period when globalization theory indicated the demise of the national economy and warning of national identity, East Asian growth was motivated, above all, by the developmental state, with great enthusiasm and interventionist governments often successfully supporting strong state identities and national neo-mercantilist economic policies. However, it is now obvious that developmental states has run their historical course and made redundant by their success within the global market (Chu 2016, p. 15).