Who Are The Most Important Actors Of The Global Political Economy?

The “Washington Rules” project of US foreign policy has managed to sustain and regenerate itself since the end of World War Two. According to the theory of “Washington Rules,” the world must be ordered by the United States and cannot be permitted to order itself. This notion is considered to be a self-mechanism; the United States has a duty and moral obligation to be the world’s policeman to the point where other nations just naturally expect us to act. Nonetheless, we sometimes forget that by following “Washington Rules,” we do not follow the limit and extend our powers. As a result, there are “blow backs” when the United States attempt to control the world; as seen by the Cuban Missile Crisis and 9/11.

Today the United States functions in a dangerously unstable world. Proliferation, politically unstable Nations, economic instability and numerous other international issues threaten our nation and its prosperity. Therefore, the United States should protect its own global interests by striving for order and security. The US can do this by maintaining relationships between allied nations, avoid involvement in other nation’s human rights so not to hinder economic growth, and prevent proliferation of dangerous weapons in unstable groups’ hands that can threaten national and international security and stability.

International political economy is an important subdiscipline of international relation. It has three main ideologies, Liberalism, Mercantilism and Marxism. In this essay there will be three parts, first part is to demonstrate what the Liberalism and Mercantilism are on the perspective of international political economy and then the second part is to compare and contrast these two ideologies of political economy. At last, give a conclusion to the Liberalism and Mercantilism.

The world order, in general, refers to the economic, political or social state of affairs prevailing in the world at a given time and the corresponding effect this has on the different relationships countries have among each other. In this essay, I will argue that the world order is not in fact changing and that we are not witnessing a power shift from the West to the rest of the world. To prove this, I will analyse in terms of hard and soft power how the West is still the more dominant party. Firstly, I will compare the military and economic power of the US and China and come to the conclusion that the US is the more dominant power. Next, I will demonstrate how in terms of foreign policy and political power the US commands more soft power

World disorder has haunted the world for a while now. It poses a powerful threat to the existence and sustenance of world order. World order, by definition, is a set of rules governing the most significant of relationships of the general interstate system and the world’s super powers in particular. It is anticipated that in the future, world order will be dominated by hegemonic globalization in the US whereby secondary order relegated to multi-polar power with emphasis on economic, political, and cultural blocs or federations (the EU in particular) in conjunction with Russia, Japan and China. The emerging US order will overshadow any possible power emerging from India, OPEC countries and the Latin American countries.

The study of International Relations surrounds itself in theories such as Realism and Liberalism, with actors and power structures defining the discipline. Actors are key to the study; however, in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries there has been a key dominant hegemon which rules over the international community. Hegemony as defined by the Encyclopaedia Britannica, refers to the supremacy of one group over another, often supported by legitimate norms and ideas, and in modern society describes the dominance of a certain set of actions that allows for supremacy in certain areas and a unipolar world. The United States of America emerged from World War II as the overriding economic, political,

After the Cold War, the United States emerged victorious and became the sole super power in the international system. Since then, the US has been a champion of liberal democratic values such as very strong institutional protections of individual civil rights, free-market economy, governmental leaders who are elected by the people in fair and balance elections who make the choices concerning peace and war and a secular political order. However, in recent years there are debates and talks of what role the United States as a country should play in the future, especially after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The debate on what path the nation should follow has led to debates with those who argue that we should revert back to isolationism and to others who believe the United States should submit its power to the United Nations and an international system of laws. But I argue for a different approach, an approach that the nation has used in the past and that is primacy.

The term grand strategy in global politics concerns the assemblage of cooperation between the states with its policies and plans in an effort to regulate military, economic and diplomatic means collectively which assist in promoting a state’s national interest. In view of this the method of grand strategy in regards to theory and practice is studied in an attempt to assist in learning from our past. The United States is known for its achievement in becoming an ultimate superpower during its quest to have stability between other state’s such France and United Kingdom. Throughout history the United States has dedicated itself to solving other state’s problems. Due to this it has caused many states to have a dependency on the United States in

Even in attempting to show the political and economic characteristics of hegemony, the term does not provide a contribution in understanding a more stable international system. The US during the post war period in maintaining their status as a hegemon has been problematic. There are contradictions to the maintenance of hegemony that has it made it very difficult for the US to keep their status. First, the privileges enjoyed by the hegemon are abnormal in the context where there are supposed to be specific and universal rules and principles. Second, “The hegemon may weary of the special burdens necessary to sustain” (Skidmore 26). The hegemon being the dominant power is going to have to define interest in broader terms, which can lead to

The period of post-1945 was described by some analysts as hierarchical order led by the US with liberal characteristics which the US operated within a loose system consists of multilateral rules provided public goods and institutions that gave feebler states a say. The analysts pointed out that preserving this institutional framework is rational for many countries even if America’s resource of power deteriorate. In a sense the international order led by the US could outlast the primacy power resources of America, though there are arguments that emergence of first-hand powers indicates the order’s demise.

History has shown that cooperation among states is important in regards to international politics. There have been many attempts made to create systems of government that promote both state sovereignty as well as international organization. Concepts such as postwar neoliberalism and unipolarism emerged in an attempt to achieve these goals. Ideas developed during hegemonic eras may also continue to exist long after the hegemony disappears as well, because these ideas are so successful in promoting international collusion among nations.

Moreover, ‘America’s example is also a critical component of our foundation.’ ‘Our moral leadership is grounded principally in the power of our example—not through an effort to impose our system on other peoples.’ The reinforcement will not lead to isolationism since ‘America has never succeeded through isolationism.’ Thus, the second way is to continue the broad commitment, characterizing lately the US behavior in the international system, but not necessarily militarily, rather by any other means. US will cooperate with allies, partners but also new powers like China, India or Russia. Additionally it will incite rivals to adhere to widely accepted and followed international norms. For this, all instruments of powers will be required. Then in order to spread commonly shared values beyond states, the US needs to reach their people. The government will therefore encourage connections with the American people for ‘we have seen that the best ambassadors for American values and interests are the American people – our businesses, nongovernmental organizations, scientists athletes, artists, military service members, and students.’ Shared values will naturally enable the last way, which is ‘Promoting a Just and Sustainable International Order.’ The idea is to, in the interest of all, to share the burden of international stability with nations, ad hoc groups of

Thus, in this context of a unipolar system dominated by U.S., it is highly unlikely that a great power like U.S., motivated by its relentless pursuit of power and security, would allow itself to be deterred by U.N. resolutions that do not comply with its own interests. This also reflects the realist interpretation of international system which is characterized by anarchy and therefore, it is not considered prudent for a State to entrust its safety and survival on another actor or international institutions such as United Nations.

“Commercial and financial issues are starting to replace traditional diplomatic and security questions as the main stuff of foreign policy. This shift in priorities in part a consequence of the receding threat of war between the superpowers. But, just as important, a sweep of world-wide economic adjustment is also under way, changing the framework of inter-national politics.”

It is no dispute that international relations, in both contemporary times and the past, has always been characterized by power. Relationships between states are usually characterized by one state having power over the other. In reality, the international playing field is characterized by a hierarchy of states, their place in the order depending on the amount of power they possess. Although the existence of power as a central concept in international relations is universally accepted, how power is defined is the subject of many debates. Because there is a multiplicity of perspectives to be used in looking at international relations – such as realism, liberalism, constructivism, and rationalism, among many others – the views on power can be numerous.