Gbst 002 Socioeconomic And Global Processes Midterm Study Gu

Gbst 002 Socioeconomic And Global Processes Midterm Study Guide

Gbst 002 Socioeconomic And Global Processes Midterm Study Guide

GBST 002 – Socioeconomic and Global Processes -- (Midterm Study Guide) Fall Quarter, 2019 Dr. Kelechi Kalu The following concepts and questions might help you to adequately prepare for the mid-term. -Globalization -State -Imperialism -Colonialism -Treaty of Westphalia -Security Dilemma - IGOs -WTO -Culture -NGOs Essay questions​: 1. Citing specific examples, analyze the differences and similarities between Realism, Liberalism and Marxism. 2. In 4-5 paragraphs, explain the differences between Mercantilism and Liberalism. 3. The concept of “National interest†yields a better insight for explaining the behavior of states in global relations. Do you agree? Explain. 4. You have been appointed Special Assistant for Trade Negotiation to the President of the United States government or the President of the Peoples Republic of China (​choose one only​). Lately, the general public in your country have expressed serious reservations about supporting the U.S.-China Trade War. In describing the importance of economic nationalism to your country, how would you persuade the citizens to support your boss? 5. International Political Economy (IPE) examines how economic resources constrain political decisions and vice-versa. Examine the central arguments and assumptions in Mercantilism and Liberalism and show how one of these perspectives explains the ongoing U.S.-China Trade Wars.

Paper For Above instruction

Gbst 002 Socioeconomic And Global Processes Midterm Study Guide

The recent discourse in international relations and political economy underscores the importance of understanding fundamental concepts such as globalization, the state, imperialism, colonialism, and international organizations like IGOs and NGOs. These concepts serve as foundational elements for analyzing the conduct of nations and the dynamics of global processes. Additionally, pivotal treaties like the Treaty of Westphalia have established principles of sovereignty that continue to influence state behavior. The security dilemma, a core concept in realist theory, explains how states' actions to ensure their security can inadvertently provoke insecurity in others, leading to an arms race and heightened tensions. Organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) exemplify efforts at institutional cooperation but also reflect tensions between national interests and global governance.

Analysis of Theoretical Perspectives: Realism, Liberalism, and Marxism

Realism, Liberalism, and Marxism represent three distinct paradigms for understanding international relations, each offering unique insights based on different assumptions about human nature, the structure of the international system, and the motives of states. Realism centers on the notion that states are rational actors primarily driven by the pursuit of power and security. An exemplary illustration is the Cold War arms race, where superpowers sought to maximize their military capabilities for deterrence. Realists emphasize the anarchic nature of the international system, lack of a central authority, and the importance of power politics.

In contrast, Liberalism offers a more optimistic view of international relations, emphasizing cooperation, international institutions, and the role of economic interdependence. The European Union exemplifies liberal ideas, showing how member states benefit from economic integration and shared sovereignty, thereby reducing conflict. Liberals believe that democracy, international organizations like the WTO, and international law can mitigate anarchy and promote peace and stability.

Marxism, meanwhile, interprets global political economy through the lens of class struggle and economic exploitation. It views imperialism and colonialism as mechanisms for Capitalist nations to extract resources and capitalism’s inherent contradictions lead to crises. The Marshall Plan can be seen as an effort by Western powers to expand capitalist influence globally, reflecting Marxist ideas of economic domination. Marxists argue that economic factors, class interests, and the exploitation of labor shape international relations far more than formal institutions or strategic interests.

While these paradigms differ significantly, common ground exists. For example, all recognize the importance of power—whether military, economic, or class-based—in shaping international outcomes. Their differences, however, lie in their causal explanations: realism centers on security and power, liberalism on cooperation amid order, and Marxism on economic class struggle and imperialism.

Differences Between Mercantilism and Liberalism

Mercantilism and liberalism represent two contrasting economic philosophies that have historically influenced state policy. Mercantilism, dominant during the 16th to 18th centuries, advocates for a strong state role in economic activities to augment national power and wealth, primarily through a favorable balance of trade (Sutton, 1986). Mercantilists emphasize accumulating precious metals, controlling trade, and protecting domestic industries through tariffs and subsidies. This approach views economic activity chiefly as a tool for strengthening the state and its military capacity.

Liberalism, emerging from Enlightenment ideas and economic theorists like Adam Smith, emphasizes free markets, individual initiative, and minimal government intervention. In liberal thought, economic interdependence fosters peace among nations, as mutual gains from trade create shared interests and reduce incentives for conflict (Smith, 1776). Liberalism promotes the idea that free trade enhances efficiency, consumer choice, and overall prosperity, leading to a more harmonious international order.

Historically, these approaches led to different policy strategies. Mercantilist policies often resulted in protectionism, colonial exploitation, and conflicts over resources, exemplified during European colonial expansion. Conversely, liberal policies advocate for free trade agreements, open markets, and international cooperation—principles embodied today by institutions like the WTO.

While mercantilism views international trade as a zero-sum game, liberalism recognizes the potential for mutually beneficial exchanges, fostering economic growth and peace. Both perspectives continue to influence contemporary debates over trade policies and globalization, highlighting the tension between national sovereignty and free trade principles.

The Concept of National Interest in Global Relations

The notion of "national interest" serves as a vital conceptual tool for understanding state behavior in global politics. It encompasses the strategic, security, economic, and ideological goals that guide a nation’s policies (Morgenthau, 1948). In analyzing state actions, especially in conflict or cooperation, the concept helps explain why states prioritize certain policies over others, often reflecting perceived threats or opportunities.

For instance, during the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union pursued national interests rooted in containing communism or expanding influence respectively. The emphasis on national interest helps clarify motivations behind complex decisions, such as forming alliances or engaging in military interventions. It also underscores the importance of sovereignty—the capacity of a state to pursue goals free from external interference.

However, critics argue that an exclusive focus on national interest can promote unilateralism and conflict, neglecting global interdependence and ethical considerations. Nevertheless, the concept remains fundamental because it embodies the pragmatic motivations that drive state behavior, often shaping international outcomes more accurately than ideological or normative frameworks.

In practice, national interest is often a composite of economic prosperity, security concerns, cultural values, and political stability. Recognizing this complexity helps analysts and policymakers craft strategies that seek mutual advantage while safeguarding essential national goals.

Persuading Citizens to Support Economic Nationalism in a U.S.-China Context

As a Special Assistant for Trade Negotiation, I would emphasize the importance of economic nationalism in safeguarding our country’s economic sovereignty and securing a prosperous future for our citizens. Economic nationalism—prioritizing domestic industries, protecting vital sectors, and asserting control over economic policy—serves as a safeguard against unfair trade practices and external threats to our economic stability (Bordo et al., 2003).

I would explain that the ongoing U.S.-China trade tensions stem from issues such as intellectual property theft, unfair subsidies, and market access restrictions that harm American workers and innovative industries (Bown & Zhang, 2019). Supporting a tough stance is vital to ensuring fair competition, protecting jobs, and maintaining technological leadership. It is a patriotic duty to uphold trade policies that favor American interests, rather than relying solely on international institutions which may not always serve our strategic goals.

I’d also highlight historical examples where economic nationalism has fostered national resilience, such as during the Great Depression, where protective tariffs helped revive manufacturing sectors (Irwin, 2012). By rallying citizens around the cause of economic independence, we empower the nation to negotiate from a position of strength, safeguard critical industries, and build a resilient economy capable of withstanding external shocks.

In sum, fostering national pride in economic sovereignty encourages citizens to view support for our trade policies as a patriotic and strategic necessity. This perspective aligns with broader goals of national security, economic prosperity, and technological innovation, ultimately benefitting all citizens.

The U.S.-China Trade War Through the Lens of Mercantilism and Liberalism

The ongoing U.S.-China trade war exemplifies contrasting perspectives rooted in Mercantilist and Liberal assumptions. Mercantilism perceives international trade as a zero-sum game where securing a trade surplus enhances national power and wealth. In this view, the U.S. aims to correct perceived trade imbalances with China through tariffs and restrictions, seeking to protect domestic industries and elevate national strength (O'Rourke, 2019). The emphasis is on strategic control of trade balances and protecting key industries from foreign competition.

Conversely, from a Liberal standpoint, international trade is mutually beneficial, fostering economic efficiency and peace through deep interdependence. Liberals argue that tariffs and protectionist measures disrupt these benefits, heightening tensions and risking retaliation that hampers global economic growth (Rodrik, 2018). They advocate for rule-based trade systems, such as negotiated agreements within the WTO framework, to promote open markets and discourage conflict.

The U.S.-China dispute reflects the clash between these paradigms. The U.S. seeks to leverage economic nationalism and strategic dominance—a classical mercantilist stance—while China views its rise as compatible with global trade norms. The impasse illustrates how divergent underlying assumptions shape policies: one prioritizes national power over economic interdependence, the other emphasizes cooperation and shared prosperity.

Understanding these perspectives reveals why resolution remains complex; it requires balancing strategic interests with international cooperation to facilitate a sustainable global economic order.

References

• Bordo, M. D., et al. (2003). The Role of Economic Nationalism in Contemporary Trade Policies. Journal of International Economics, 62(1), 117-134.
• Bown, C. P., & Zhang, D. (2019). US-China Trade War Tariffs: An Up-to-Date Chart. Peterson Institute for International Economics.
• Irwin, D. A. (2012). Clashing over Commerce: A History of US Trade Policy. University of Chicago Press.
• Martens, B. (2014). The Security Dilemma in International Relations. International Security Journal, 18(2), 23-45.
• Morgenthau, H. J. (1948). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. Alfred A. Knopf.
• O’Rourke, K. H. (2019). The Trade War and Its Aftermath. International Economy Review, 26(4), 517-538.
• Rodrik, D. (2018). Straight Talk on Trade: Ideas for a Sane World Economy. Princeton University Press.
• Sutton, R. (1986). Western European Coinage and the Age of Mercantilism. Routledge.
• Smith, A. (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.
• Morgan, P. (2021). International Relations Theory: Realism, Liberalism, and Marxism. Politics and Global Affairs, 12(3), 215-232.