Differences in liberal and realist approaches

Differences in crowing and realist approachesEvery base interaction between humans in antithetical activities entails defining the musicians in discrete groups of ii. The purpose of which is to contrastiveiate between wizard group of participants that surpass from the other group that does not. The exact labeling of these groups varies with the activity under consideration. Mor tout ensembley speaking, a person green goddess be grouped into either good or evil class Talking active football, a runer can buoy be grouped into either superior or inferior syndicate economics in addition entails dividing the people who study them as either mere or Keynesians. Though the initial cardinal groups occupy the end points of a horizontal scale, there be many entities that interconnect these two, thereby choice the grey bea. They never full advocate the logic of any mavin of the two kinda lay out for an amalgamation, offering a middle raceway to any eventual solution. The hi story of policy-making science as an pedantic field of study also has been imbued with an eternal clash of fancys between two educates of thought. Throughout generations these two schools have vied for the coveted position in explaining the constitution of humans as policy-making entities. One sees humans as more and more self-importance concern and find little in them to realise together with for the benefit of all gentlemans gentleman the other guesss in the selflessness of the homogeneous humanity and sees hope and tenableness to stay put working for a piece where everything would be characterized by principles of freedom. The bounceer is called the Realist school of thought while the latter(prenominal)(prenominal) stance is that of the patient ofs. The clash is particularly evident in the area of humanitywide Relations inside Political Science. Here realists think of the supranational advance governance as increasingly anarchic, believe that all nominat es work in their self bear on and characterize internationalisticist authorities as author centered concentrating on balance of occasion, and finally that struggle is inevitable in the international utter system. On the other hand, kinds conclude that that there is enceinte room for cooperation and benefit for all in the international bow system, believe that secernates can and do work for rough-cut benefit and find depict a urinatest the realist claim that all international political relation is military unit politics. They also argue that war is avoidable and complex interdependence has also a comp starnt part to play in the international arena. If the above demarcation separates the all-embracings and realists in spite of appearance IR, the academe in spite of appearance another relatively new sub discipline of Political Science, IPE, had also followed that pattern in their study of a transactionhip of international politics and economics. Realism in IPE has been more lots called as mercantilism. In some(prenominal) case they represent the same school in a sense that both of them act as synonyms for a particular school of thought. Mercantilism has come to find more usage as a term within IPE as opposed to realism in IR. As the aspect of international politics parsimoniousness under discussion is international disdain, I will use realism as mercantilism end-to-end the course of this paper to remain synonymous with the terminology used within IPE. The paper would give a brief introduction of the two converses within IPE and then scrutinize them further side by side till the end of the paper. The conclusion aims to provide a brief under al-Qaidaing as to where were headed in this discussion now and in the future.Liberalism traces its root to somewhat two degree Celsius years ago to economic philosophers Adam Smith and David Ricardo. Liberalism has abounded in popularity in the latermath of the WWI and WWII. Although limitations have come around in the softness of bragging(a)ism to bear the fruit which it so vigorously argued for, barrens are found everywhere today in the business community of the West, Wall Street, IMF and World avow etc. Liberals praise the benefits of free food market and foxiness. Liberals most important theatrical role is the idea that all participants in a system of free markets and cover are beneficiaries (Cohen, p 12, 2008). The view does not stop at the articulatio of free market. They fail to give imputable importance to the role of governing in free markets and take. State for most liberals is a negative and holistic entity which should be kept out of the affairs of the free market as it impairs the Laissez-faire idea of market regulation.Mercantilism rightly claims to have the foresighted-acting intellectual tradition because this emphasizes the importance of nations and power in thinking about economic issues. Mercantilists contrast most sharply with liberals in a sserting that the go on of champion nation usually comes at the expense of others (Cohen, p. 12, 2008). As a go mercantilists see international economy increasingly characterized by a close relationship between economic, technological and legions strength all topped by a greater national influence. Mercantilist arguments are increasingly used by countries and groups disadvantaged by international trade as a cover for their inability to stimulate national development process. They argue for self serving initiatives like protectionism etc. in the areas of economics and military technology. The contribution of mercantilists is to recognize that international economic relations operate within a world of competitive and contraventionual nations (Cohen, p. 12, 2008). For mercantilists, power and economic motives both play an important role in the shaping of international economic cooperation or competition.The two ends of the spectrum are linked together by a plurality of theories and discourses. The links at times appear to be very convert while at other times add to the already dominant confusion in this field. This un genuine(p)ty is what makes IPE as a discipline so interesting to study. The feeling of intrigue very much abounds within bingleself as one studies more and more the web that connects nations in international politics or separates them. multinational political economy is not an easy quash and the major tool for analyzing IPE, trade, becomes harder to critically take apart with the aim of reaching towards a specific conclusion. Hence one should delve further into IPE with an open estimation and let the discourse guide oneself towards any eventual conclusion.The modality of the yield requires me to compare and contrast liberalism and mercantilism. The framework that I intend to use is to analyze both in terms of their key actors, key dynamic and their stand on conflict and cooperation in the international arena of trade. I also intend to put side by side their inception as an academic school of thought and see if any meaningful result can be deducted from it.The origin of the mercantilist school of thought can be traced grit to the emergence of nation based politics in europium during the fifteenth century. Liberals found root in the wake of the industrial variation of the eighteenth and nineteenth century. In this sense Mercantilism ideas have had a longer carriage than their liberalist counterparts. Liberal ideas earned much approval and favoritism in the wake of the failure of realism as an effective discourse describing and governing the international politics that led to the bloody World Wards I and II. Liberals see the international trade system as interdependent rather than anarchic and self serving as advocated by realists. Realists see the international trade as a zero juncture game, the gain of one country is the loss of another, which liberals see it as a positive sum game that the growth of interna tional trade is of benefit to everyone. Liberals give the idea of the growing of a pie, as the pie gets bigger the slice each participant gets also ontogenesiss. Here one should question that this example fails to give due account to the question that which participant gets the bigger slice. Also that due to the proportional degree or direct advantages that some countries hold over the other, those countries grow at a rate higher(prenominal) than the others. Also the countries not possessing the proportional degree or absolute advantage require huge domestic political be to be entailed if a shift is made from no advantage sectors to ones having comparative advantage in its domestic economy these costs include unemployment, temporary worker inflation, public backlash, loss of political support for the government in power etc. For example during the Vietnam war, professorship Nixon decided against raising taxes to cut back US trade deficit because it might weaker his already fra gile political support. Now this differential growth rates for different countries presents itself as a dilemma for a subject especially since the concept of a maintain is an entity that is supposed to provide the best potential package of security, progress and life style towards its citizens. In the pursuit of this self or collective interest of realists and liberals respectively, the former believe that power has an equal, if not stronger, role to play on with economics in the international economy and trade relations the latter tend to underplay the role of power in the international politics and emphasize the ability of states to choose between attractive courses of action. Nevertheless, mercantilist arguments have often come to be chosen as routes for underdeveloped nations to stumble up with their developed counterparts. Alexander Hamilton writing in the 1970s urged Americans to protect their manufacturers from strange competition so that they could industrialize and inc rease their power. Almost a hundred years later, Fredrick List argued that Germany should industrialize behind trade barriers so that it could catch up to the economic might of Great Britain (OBrien Williams, 2004). The protectionist apprehensions or favoritism continue till this day. As recently as on the 17th of November this year, chairperson Hu Jintao of China in a joint news conference with President Obama called for joint opposition to trade protectionism (China and US to work together, 2009).Realists see the state as the key actor in the international arena, while for liberals the starting time point of analysis is the individual. Liberals argue for a complete freedom for the necessarily of the individual by arguing that if left alone the individuals would maximise the gain of the replete(p) humankind regardless of their origin. Liberals see state interference in the market as negative and advocate the freedom of the market to self govern. Realists on the other hand beli eve that there is nothing raw(a) about markets. They are artificially within the social contract of each state, which requires that a markets functions have to be regulated by a higher authority. Similarly realists doubt the role firms have to play within the domestic markets and as expected for liberals the armorial bearing of firms is a positive omen in a sense it increases the overall wealth of any country. Realists prefer state to the individual and for liberals its vice versa. Even within liberal thought, there constitute a demarcation separating those who are hardcore liberals and those who acknowledge the role state has to play. It ranges from those who see the state fading away in an emerging borderless world (Ohmae 1990) that will be dominated by private business to liberal institutionalists (Keohane and Nye, 1977) who stress the continuing importance of the state, but see it enmeshed in webs of interdependence and international organization (OBrien Williams, 2004).Movi ng towards the dynamics of these two discourses, for liberal theorists the market lies at the centre of economic life (OBrien Williams, 2004). Realists feel the sharp-witted activity of the state characterizes the dynamics of international trade and cooperation. Here the discerning activity by any is undertaken with an aim to get the best possible outcome for its citizens. Liberals admit the shortfall of markets to weave their magic in certain fragile times of international trade but theyre almost certain in their belief that any further state involvement at that fragile instant is certain to worse the already weak market situation. Realists back out of this argument by go oning that market relations are important but market is governed by the activities of the state. Economic activities and actors are order to political agendas and actors respectively. The consequence of the salience of the state is that international economic relations become international political relations (OBrien Williams, 2004). Realist scholars believe that the nature of global economy reflects the interests of the most powerful states by arguing that free trade regimes tend to exist during the times when a single state dominates the entire world system as the hegemon can absorb the costs associated with heroic the free trade system. As the system degrades towards a multiple power centre system, conflict characterizes the international relationship between states as interests contradict. Liberals maintain that if all the countries maintain free trade policies and shun self centered motives, conflict would certainly not take place. They give the example of europium following the WWII and also that liberal democracies never go to war with one another. The phenomenon of globalization has evoked two tiered response within both the realist and the liberal school of thought. Defensive nationalists within realism admit the presence of globalization and work to undermine it rather tha n skeptics who dont see any form of globalization at all. Within liberalism too a similar cut off is crapd hyper globalists see globalization as breaking d have barriers between countries and unleashing a force of production bound to produce further happiness for humankind (OBrien Williams, 2004). Liberals influenced with Keynesian principles still see the problems of free markets in certain scenarios as cause for possible hesitation towards globalization it might have some unwanted outcomes. They support the need for market reform till its beau ideal is achieved.Finally dealing with the aspect of conflict and cooperation, liberals see international trade as essentially cooperative as opposed to the realist view that it is conflictual. usage of theories within both the schools that advocate their respective ideas include the theory of comparative advantage within liberalism that describe that even while possessing a comparative advantage, not absolute, in a certain area of prod uction, one can benefit from trade in the international trade. Realist power based theories emit the absence of any higher authority in the international state system which they see as must to regulating any cooperation and mutual benefit in the international trade. The concern for liberals with nationalist policies is that they lead to conflict. Liberal theorists see trade interaction as strengthening bonds for quiescence and stability. The liberal belief in the connection between protectionist policies and conflict and the reverse argument, to wit that capitalist favours peace and conflict and the reverse argument, namely that capitalist favours peace, is primal to the liberal critique of the international economic order. (OBrien Williams, p. 20, 2004) Immanuel Kant foresaw an era of perpetual peace when all the world market systems would be characterized by Free states and international state an alliance of democratic states. Woodrow Wilson advocated adopting liberal princip les for the international state system following World War I also a entry principle for the League of Nations. Similar nationalist policies following the Great belief were understood to have aggravated relations between countries leading up to the World War II. Citing the pluralist nature of international trade and economic system, liberal theory of complex interdependence explain the connection between increase economic exchange and interconnectedness and the long peace among Western nations after 194 5represent classical liberal political economy (OBrien Williams, p. 21, 2004). The belief of international cooperation and conflict of realists tend to start with their lack of total belief in the abilities of market. Markets for realists produce both positive and negative outcomes. Since, due to their inherent assumption I believe, most realists see markets negative outcomes more than their positive ones realists argue for state control of important economic variables of their dom estic economy. A liberal economy sees these very controls as measures of protectionism. Mercantilist arguments are prevalent more in sectors which are either critical to a nations existence or has to do with their ethnic values. Examples of either of these could be a countrys defence industry or their topical anaesthetic film and music industry etc. With the culmination of the cold war as well as the communist setups of many countries around the worldly concern it appears liberal policies have seem to be dominate, for now. It remains to be seen how long does this majority support goes in redefining the international economic and political structure. few liberals went as far as to claim that history had ended because the liberal democratic model had triumphed over other forms of social organization (Fukuyama, 1992).Robert coxswain said, Theory is always for someone and for some purpose (p. 207, 1986). The presence of different ideas in analyzing one aspect of international econom ic system finds its roots in a number of reasons. The first of these is that although all the theories are assay to explain one single phenomenon, they are looking at it from different angles. One theory looks at it from the angle of security, for the other its economics that holds the velocity hand and for another school of thought, Marxism or critical perspective, its all about class struggle. Another reason is the group of people the theorization is coming from. Rich and influential people would tend to favour liberal trade policies as it offers the least resistance in conducting their business and reaping profits. Under inner group of people would advocate for protectionist policies that would protect their interests. One last reason is that due to the subjective nature of opinions and reasons, it is not possible to get an absolute categorization of a theory as right or wrong. Theories are based on observations, not mathematical truths. Thus their rightfulness depends on the value judgment that particular groups of people apply to them. It is important for us to realize is that we do not have to follow any one particular school of thought blindly. The presence of multiple layers of explanation presents one with a tool to apply ones thinking to any specific case. more than over one can find any amalgamation describing ones own stance between these layers of theorizations that has taken place until now within International Political Economy.ReferencesCohen, B. (2008). International Political Economy An Intellectual History, 17 39.OBrien, R., Williams, M. (2004). international Political Economy Evolution and Dynamics, 11 36.(2009, November 17). China and US to work together. BBC News. Retrieved from http//news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8363643.stm