The Concept of Global Economy

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.

Commentators contend that globalization has disintegrated national sway and has brought about an exchange of force from states to enterprises or to universal associations. Since the late 1970s, there has been a developing acknowledgment of a belief system, frequently called "globalism," that supports an open market and constrained government impedance in capital and exchange streams. Corporate hobbies have driven this motivation, which they have forced, the faultfinders contend, on the creating

The era of globalization has witnessed the growing influence of a number of unconventional international actors, from non-governmental organizations, to multi-national corporations, to global political movements. Traditional, state-centric definitions of foreign policy

In Stewart Patrickʻs article discussing the complications of incorporating newly developing countries into the global economy, he argues that these emerging states are unwilling to conform to the parameters that the United States has asserted over the global economy. In addition, he contends that these emerging states presume that they are able to modify the international system to correspond with their own interests and needs (Patrick, 47). Throughout the article, Patrick references various actions and preferences that demonstrates this entitled attitude that he argues emerging states embody. One example he alludes to regarding economic relations is the opposing views between established states and emerging states on the new

The year is 2015 and every state is trying to define borderless border as the world is becoming smaller due to positive and negative progress in the different habits of society, markets, technologies, economies, and politics. Advances concerns the international relation realms body is this new era of the “age of globalization” as the world becomes flatter, actively horizontal, with their inter-state policies aimed in the global-economics more than ever constitutes the inverse role from individual to state opposite to the presumed assumption of state-individual structure relation. However, divisions are still harshly marked within groups made up by the same individuals composing

Over the course of history, domestic politics have been shaped by international forces. Forces like war and trade; empire and colonies; migration and the spread of ideas. Globalization and Neoliberalism plays an important role in impacting politics in all states. “Globalization is a system in which human beings are no longer part of isolated communities that are linked through narrow channels of diplomatic relations of trade”(O’Neil,2017, pg.346). Globalization creates a division between international relations and domestic politics. When globalization makes a distinction, then the aspects of domestic politics are controlled by global forces. Globalization changes the  institutions of economics, politics, and society. The institutions are measure by space and time of social norms, culture, boundaries. The boundaries create a local identity and control (particularly-“state, religion, or set of cultural values holds sway over the land and here but not there.”)(O’Neil, 2015, pg.348).  Furthermore, political isolation becomes impossible to happen.

The claim that the economic globalization and transnational economic forces are declining the authority of the states is exaggerated, he says; “for better or for worse, this is still a state-dominated world” Barma and Vogel, p. 536). If there was an argument to be made about the declining power of the states, it would be “the decades prior to World War I when markets were truly supreme and governments had little power over economic affairs” (Barma and Vogel, p. 537). As for the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, states have pretty much remained a major actor in the globalized economy. For example, while

In Empire, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri report a new shift in the international politics and outline the structure of its power. They claim that a new sovereignty is rising in the world system, and its structure of the rule has emerged along with the global market. Since the global market is eroding the Westphalia sovereignty, the economic factor of production and exchange move easily across the national boundaries. Throughout the process of globalization, the sovereignty of the nation-state has progressively declined in the hand of capitalism. Even the dominant nation cannot be called a supreme and sovereign authority either outside or within its territory. Hardt and Negri (2000) state, “The

Global Politics The study of international or rather global politics, seeks to provide an account of politics in the broadest domain. The domain of international politics in the twenty-first century is characterised by the increasing number of actors pursuing common and personal interests. It is largely due to the globalised, interdependent nature of the current international political environment that the concepts of sovereignty and power deserve further evaluation.

As a result globalisation has also undone some important cultural and psychological underpinnings of sovereignty. However, it is imperative to note that the effect of globalisation on different nation states will not be the same, because states differ domestically, historically, politically and socio-culturally. Therefore, states will make different policy choices in response to the same global phenomena (Held 1989, 237).

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.

Do economic markets and state governments share an adversarial or symbiotic relationship? Scholars of International Political Economics have been at odds over what role, if any, the state should have in the International Economy. Despite such disagreements, most scholars can concur that IPE is ultimately concerned with the ways in which states shape the systems through which economic interactions are expressed, and conversely the results that economic interactions (including the power of collective markets and individuals acting both within and outside them) have upon political structures and outcomes. The relation between states and markets in the international scene, and whether, the relationship at home affects relationships abroad, is of great importance. One contemporary in particular Ian Bremmer has attempted to explain this relationship in light of the latest economic recession, and what impact the state should have in the future. In his book titled The End of the Free Market Bremmer believes that the Free Market Capitalism which has been a staple of American Economic prosperity is still the system that will provide for innovation and the free flow of ideas, information, people, money, goods, and services (Bremmer,183-184). Countries like China, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, and regions like Southeast Asia and Africa have all converted from command economies to a degree into state capitalist countries. These countries have all experienced the positives of the free market

Robert Gilpin once wrote that “the parallel existence and mutual interaction of “state” and “market” in the modern world create “political economy”; without both state and market there would be no political economy.” Hence, many academics treat state-market interactions as the core issue surrounding the International Political Economy (hereinafter referred to as IPE) due to the rapid growth of globalization. In order to assess the question, it is imperative that the definitions of IPE and globalization are provided. The former can be defined as the interaction of the market and such powerful actors as states, multinational firms and international organizations (Robert Gilpin, 2001) and the latter may be described as a process through which the world is becoming increasingly interconnected in the areas of politics, economics and culture. Globalization is fundamentally transforming the relationship between states and markets. Even as some scholars predict the retreat of the state in the face of increasingly globalized markets, others like Robinson (as cited in Joseph, 2011) posit that globalization has promoted the role of the state to serve the needs of a transnational capitalist class. On the one hand, the market is concerned with implementing economic activities that are there to be the most productive and the most profitable. On the other hand, the state’s job is to predominately capture and control the entire process of economic growth and capital accumulation

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