International Economic Exchange And Foreign Investment

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.

At this point in time, the main actors in the international system are nation-states seeking an agenda of their own based on personal gain and national interest. Significantly, the most important actor is the United States, a liberal international economy, appointed its power after the interwar period becoming the dominant economy and in turn attained the position of hegemonic stability in the international system. The reason why the United States is dominating is imbedded in their intrinsic desire to continuously strive for their own national interest both political and economic. Further, there are other nature of actors that are not just nation-states, including non-states or transnational,

President Theodore Roosevelt, well known for his extraordinary, worldly diplomatic skills, was quoted as saying, “Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far.” During the early twentieth century, he brandished that big stick, or convincingly threatened to, with remarkable efficacy in support of his country’s political objectives. The big stick that President Roosevelt carried with him as a diplomat and Commander in Chief was the superior power of the United States military. “Historically, power has been measured by such criteria as population size and territory, natural resources, economic strength, military force, and social stability. Hard power enables countries to wield carrots and sticks to get what they want.”1 Power, a nation’s ability to influence other states to achieve a desired outcome, manifests in numerous different forms or elements within a state. Powerful states strive to employ all the elements of power, including diplomacy, information, economic, cultural, and most importantly military to further their national objectives. Although a reasonable person might expect that a militarily powerful state routinely triumphs over the weaker state in matters of war, superior military power only guarantees a victory on paper, not in any real war. This paper will show that when one considers a state’s relative military power, weaker states are capable of defeating more powerful states that struggle to formulate

What impact will the prospect of deprivatization have on investment by managers of privatized firms?

The debate on American power is a complex, yet interesting argument. This essay will discuss and define power through American military and economic aspects. These are key elements that define how much power a nation holds, as military and economic superiority allows a state to intimidate, persuade, and facilitate its own agenda. Both Cox and Williams have argued the debate on US power, and therefore their work features in this essay. I will discuss both articles in depth before coming to the conclusion that American power is in decline, and has been since 1991 at the end of the Cold War.

President of the United States Theodore Roosevelt, well known for his impressive diplomatic skills, was quoted as saying, “Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far.” He wielded that big stick, or convincingly threatened to, with remarkable efficacy during the early twentieth century. The big stick that President Roosevelt carried with him was the superior muscle power of the United States military. “Historically, power has been measured by such criteria as population size and territory, natural resources, economic strength, military force, and social stability. Hard power enables countries to wield carrots and sticks to get what they want.”1 Power, a nations ability to influence other states to achieve a desired outcome, manifests in numerous different forms within the state. Powerful states employ all the elements of power to include diplomacy, information, economic, cultural, and of course military to meet their national objectives. Although one might expect that militarily powerful states regularly triumph over weaker states in matters of war, superior military power does not guarantee a victory. This paper will show that states possessing weaker military power are capable of defeating militarily superior states that struggle to formulate sound military strategies for their armies, fail to generate the required military effectiveness on the battlefield, or cannot overcome the unpredictability of war.

Countries, depending on the surrounding factors, may employ varied approaches toward the rising powers: especially, either a preventative war or, instead, an engagement. Some states would utilize war toward the challenger; even a victory is not probable, as doing so would be less costly now in compared to the later (Levy, 1987). Nevertheless, engagement, as a choice, is also widely utilized in the international relations; rather than attempting wars, states use positive inducements for cooperation (Nincic, 2010). Question is on those factors, which determine the choices of the states toward challenger. Regime types, international structure and players, and beliefs on challengers’ intentions affect the selection of either strategy besides other factors, yet each has its own costs at the end.

Of the power of a State, it is his military power which is directly related to its economic power

In conclusion, I have argued that the world order is not changing. In order to prove this, I have first established that in terms of hard power (militarily and economically) the US is the more dominant power and as a result there appears to be no power shift. Furthermore, I have shown that even in terms of soft power (using foreign aid and foreign policy) the US still scores ahead of China, once again indicating no signs of a power

Morganthau (Cited in Haas,1953, pp.445) argues that the Balance of power can be viewed as either a description of any state of international politics in relation to power distribution or a policy or action intending to distribute power. From this framework we can use the balance of power to both understand static moments in history to observe where power lies at that moment in time and to look at how states themselves actively implement foreign policy for their own power related interests whether that be looking to balance the set of scales or to tip them

The struggle for power is very much evident in the world politics and the growing role of United States of America (USA) and China is a clear indication of this. Post- cold war, with the fall of Soviet bloc, USA became the sole superpower. Since then it has left no stone unturned in increasing its influence in world politics. Contrary to the Waltz argument that states will only seek optimum power only to defend themselves, we have seen how US has tried to increase its influence in every nook and corner of the world.

International politics is simply defined as the academic principle which deals with the practical realities of a state’s interaction with another state or several other states. This essay will outline how the classic text of Power and interdependence has shaped and continues to shape how we think about international politics.  Power and interdependence, published and authored by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye in 1977, was widely regarded as an influential book within the study of international politics. The authors wanted to challenge the fundamental assumptions of traditional and structural realism which at the time, focused on military and economic capabilities to identify state behaviour.

International change takes place when great powers rise and fall and followed by the shift in the balance of power (Jackson and Sorensen, 2003).

Although it is right that globalization promotes free trade among the states and unites them, but there are also negative outcomes, which states whether rich or poor try to protect their own interests? These negative outcomes of globalization have made the dependency theory significant in describing the state of affairs in the present world. Poor countries attempt to protect their national markets and become self-reliant (Hewison, 1999). Self-reliance can be seen as supporting a strategy of controlled relations with the world economy. Poor nations should only approve relations on the condition that the relations will enhance the societal and financial well being of the larger population. However, endeavour by the peripheral states to oppose the impact of dependency can result in results in financial sanctions and/or military attack (Sen, 2010). One example of such resentment against globalization is “localism“that surfaced during the financial crisis in Thailand (Hewison, 1999). Localism is an illustration of populist response to the changes and disparities created by globalization. Localism gained substantial energy from the Thai King’s speech in 1997, where he recommended a self-contained economy to counter the negative effects

Dr. Farok J. Contractor is a professor in the Management and Global Business department of Rutgers Business School, New Jersey. He has written hundreds of articles on the topic of international alliance and foreign direct investment. “Punching above their weight: the sources of competitive advantage for emerging-market multinationals” is one such article of global interest which has been declared of great value both for the public as well as for policy makers. The prime focus of this article is upon the phenomenon of emerging market multinationals which have swept the world by storm and introduced a whole new way of conducting global leadership and business. These emerging market multinationals are specifically discussed