This week's content was very interesting and thought provoking, to say the least. What I noticed the most is that we couldn't have decided a better time and a better city to study world politics. When the discussions about theory are able to go beyond that and get mixed with the current events (especially with this two eventful weeks for the U.S. and the world) is when I really start to understand the relevance they carry.
Embedded liberalism, at least from my perspective, is over. The world is undergoing yet another change. And every change period brings about two new things: opportunities and instability. As the tension in U.S. politics grows, threatening to divide the country over some of its most fundamental principles, other nations are undergoing the same struggle. As Elyssa mentions in her reflection, small political events, such as a municipal election, can have massive repercussions all around the world. Also, countries that used to play a big role in world politics are having to slow down their global role and instead take care of their internal problems more and more. Yet, other nations that have established a more solid internal policy and politics are reaching towards the "opportunity" side that comes with change. Some of these nations are a threat to the liberal world order that has reigned over the world for a while now. Sooner or later the U.S. has to realize that the biggest threats to a nation always come from the inside, in the form of division and hate amongst its own citizens. As a country with so much influence and power in the world stage (political, economic, military), its politics NEED to reflect that level of responsibility. If it fails to do so, soon the world will notice this and other nation will take on the mantle of world leadership.
0 Comments
Have recent changes in the organization of the global political economy meant the end of the postwar "embedded liberal" order, or are they an example of "norm-governed change"?
Considering that I do not know nearly enough to give an accurate answer, I started reading other documents related to embedded liberalism and the other economic theories that have shaped the world in the past century. While doing this I came across a text that was also by Ruggie. The article, called Globalization and the "Embedded Liberalism Compromise: The End of an Era?" (1992), was written more than ten years later than the one we read for class. In it, the focus is solely the end of embedded liberalism and the subsequent transition that the economy is going through. Ruggie argues that globalization acts as an increasing force that directly affects policy and organization in the world economy. Globalization, in hand with its direct and indirect effects, poses a deep transformation to the institutions on the global market. Ruggie then says that the divide between obtaining economic security for the nation and the extent where globalization threaten that security have to be compared to past economic transitions. After giving the reasons behind the change of the new market theory, he goes on to claim that "the American public and its leaders appear trapped by their own ideological predispositions, which make it difficult for them to see the contradiction between their increasingly neo-laissez-faire attitude [...and their] desire to safeguard the nation from the adverse effects of increasingly denationalized market forces." He concludes his paper by mentioning how moments of transition are the most dangerous for the world economy, as something would most likely go wrong. (Ruggie 1996) I think that his thoughts are accurate, as we have seen in the past decades since Ruggie wrote the article. The world order as it was known after WWII is over. Yet, a new concise order has not been established. The United States, especially under the current administration's policies, is losing its place as the hegemon in the world's economy. Rising economies such as China, India, Russia, are already contending for economic control, while disregarding principles of liberalism. Meanwhile other nations, such as Mexico and the U.K. are trying to grab a more isolationism stance. Wether nations are sticking to some sort of embedded liberalism, neoliberalism or have been taking a realist approach is very debatable. What is more certain is how the lack of a stable economic order has caused recessions and a growing inequality in the world. This period of transition also adds to growing tensions between countries, as trade wars increase and trade agreements are shaken. The next years will be very interesting as administrations changes in the U.S. and other nations will dictate the new path for the world's economic order. Works Cited: Ruggie, John Gerard. "Embedded Liberalism Compromise: The End of an Era?" Columbia University, New York, 1996. https://web.archive.org/web/20150910220511/http://www.mpifg.de/pu/workpap/wp97-1/wp97-1.html. "The World's Biggest Economies in 2018." World Economic Forum, 2018. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/04/the-worlds-biggest-economies-in-2018/. Ruggie, John Gerard. "International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order." Volume 36, Issue 2, International Regimes. Spring, 1982, 379-415. |
AlonsoI'm from Mexico City. I love cooking and eating Mexican food. Archives
December 2018
Categories
All
|