Continuing our "continuity and change" topic from last week, but this time in the sphere of political economy. The question is: 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"?
When thinking about “embedded liberal” and how it’s changed over time, we must first consider what exactly “liberal” means. “Liberal” in the way we understand and use it now can be used to describe the embedded moral economy as discussed in the reading, or it can be used as a shorthand for freedom and democracy, which are in turn coded as “American values”. “Liberal” then becomes part of the American sense of “self” and excludes “others”. In contrast, communism is made to be the enemy of a global moral economy, and this is extrapolated to mean that communism is inherently dictatorial, undemocratic, repressive, and un-American (see: McCarthyism). This was the result of calculated propaganda by the US to support US business practices, and was originally used to dissuade the American labor movements. Given this then, when we lament the loss of the liberal world order now, are we upset by perceived changes in the economic systems of the world (the “cool kids table” as Blake put it), or are we upset by who those perceived changes are implemented by? Or put in real-world terms, does China as a major economic power fundamentally challenge the “liberal world order” by virtue of being an undemocratic, communist country? One glaring omission in “International Regimes” was silence regarding the Soviet Union, a country which in 1982 was considered the US’s biggest competitor on the world stage. Without these clear definitions of what constitutes a “liberal” world order, it is difficult to say whether the US has truly shifted away from it. If liberal is inherently a US quality, then the rise of China in recent years and the relative wane of the US and Europe would indicate yes, norm-governed change has prevailed. However if we use a broader definition of embedded liberal order, then I think arguments could be made that recent changes in the global political economy are simply an evolved continuation of post-war practices. In China there is the concept of tianxia, which stems from traditional Confucian ideology and is similar to the theory of “dependency states”; under tianxia all countries in the world operate as a large family unit with similar goals and are all led by a single dominant country. China’s new Belt Road Initiative (BRI) supports leadership in the economies of other countries as a form of aid, and is similar to the Marshall Plan in building up foreign economies in order to create stable consumer bases who can later become consumers/supporters of your own economy. Furthermore, the responsibility of the government to be involved in the economy as a way of protecting and ensuring the economic security of the people sounds very similar to a lot of the rhetoric surrounding China’s “communism with Chinese characteristics” which is often lambasted by the West. Regarding the Marshall plan however, as Katie brought up, much of the rebuilding was about rebuilding the world in the US’s own image in order to secure US economic interests; this would again then directly tie “world order” and “what the world order should be” to sustaining pre-existing (Western/”American”) ideals. In conclusion, I feel like I don’t really have an answer to this week’s blog question, other than it really depends on what we define as “liberal” and for what purpose. I look forward to hearing from others either in the comments or in class.
2 Comments
Corwin
11/7/2018 08:30:06 pm
Hi Kate,
Reply
Kate
11/7/2018 08:55:57 pm
Hi Corwin,
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
KateHi, I'm Kate! I'm from Madison, WI and am planning on majoring in SIS focusing on East-Asia China. I like practicing kung fu, listening to music, and drinking bubble tea. Archives
December 2018
Categories
All
|