Politics Of The Global Economy: Final Paper Premise Guidelin

Politics Of The Global Economyfinal Paperpremise Guidelines

Read the excerpt below carefully, particularly the portion regarding global affairs and the international economy. Your goal here is to build your own argument on whether you agree with Ikenson’s opinion (and that of the many pundits who claim that pulling out of the TPP was a “bad idea,” which has now become almost common wisdom in D.C. policy circles). In doing so, you may find helpful to answer some of the following questions: What type of theoretical understanding on the international political economy is Ikenson (implicitly) drawing upon? Is such a way of making sense of the global economy tenable? Why (i.e., data/examples)?

Given your knowledge of the different (theoretical) ways of making sense of the global economy, what are some other aspects of it that Ikenson’s (and other experts) claim may be missing? Why?

Paper For Above instruction

The decision of the United States to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in 2017 marked a significant moment in the history of international economic policy and the broader global political economy. The debate surrounding this decision is rooted in contrasting visions of economic integration, strategic positioning, and the role of international institutions. To evaluate whether the decision to exit the TPP was a “bad idea,” it is essential to understand the underlying theoretical frameworks that influence such perspectives, analyze the data and examples supporting these viewpoints, and consider alternative approaches to interpreting the global economy.

Theoretical Foundations of Ikenson’s Perspective

Daniel Ikenson’s argument in favor of the TPP underscores a neoliberal paradigm that emphasizes the importance of free trade, open markets, and institutional arrangements in fostering economic growth and stability. This perspective draws heavily upon classical and neoclassical economic theories, which posit that removing barriers to trade leads to efficiency gains, consumer benefits, and overall prosperity (Krugman, 2018). The notion that trade agreements like the TPP serve to reinforce the rules-based international order aligns with liberal institutionalism, emphasizing the role of international organizations and agreements in managing inter-state relations (Keohane, 1984).

Ikenson’s assertion that the TPP would reaffirm the “primacy of the rules and institutions established under U.S. leadership after World War II” reflects a belief in the United States’ role as a benign hegemon that sets and maintains rules conducive to global stability and economic growth (Ikenberry, 2011). This view relies on the assumption that multilateral agreements and leadership by dominant powers foster peace, predictability, and economic prosperity, rooted in the liberal internationalist tradition.

Merits and Limitations of Ikenson’s Approach

The liberal institutionalist framework supports the idea that trade agreements like the TPP create mutually beneficial arrangements that enhance economic efficiency and geopolitical stability. Empirical evidence indicates that trade liberalization correlates with income growth, poverty reduction, and technological diffusion (World Bank, 2020). The TPP’s potential benefits to U.S. workers, consumers, and businesses, as highlighted by Ikenson, align with these data-driven outcomes.

However, critics argue that this perspective overlooks several critical aspects of the global economy. First, it tends to underestimate the distributional effects within countries—while overall national income may rise, certain sectors and communities may suffer job losses or wage stagnation. Moreover, it often assumes that international institutions are inherently equitable and effective, ignoring issues of power asymmetry and the potential for these agreements to disproportionately benefit multinational corporations at the expense of workers or environmental standards (Stiglitz, 2017).

Furthermore, the neoliberal focus on market liberalization does not sufficiently account for the geopolitical and strategic implications of such agreements. The TPP, for example, was viewed by some as a counterbalance to China’s growing influence in the Asia-Pacific region, suggesting that economic decisions are intertwined with security concerns (Leong & Collins, 2016). The withdrawal, therefore, might undermine not only economic benefits but also strategic stability.

Alternative Theoretical Perspectives and Missing Elements

Other theoretical approaches offer nuanced insights that challenge Ikenson’s or liberal perspectives. Constructivist theories emphasize the importance of identities, norms, and historical narratives in shaping economic policies (Wendt, 1992). From this lens, the decision to withdraw from the TPP could be seen as a reflection of shifting narratives about America’s role in the world and skepticism towards multilateral institutions.

Political economy approaches rooted in dependency theory and Marxist frameworks highlight the exploitative and unequal nature of global capitalism, critiquing the assumption that free trade universally benefits all participants. From this standpoint, agreements like the TPP may entrench inequalities both within and between nations, favoring corporate interests and perpetuating global disparities (Bello, 2017).

Finally, a critical missing aspect in Ikenson’s argument may be the environmental and social externalities of trade agreements. The focus on economic growth often neglects considerations such as carbon emissions, labor rights, and indigenous sovereignty, which are crucial for sustainable development (Fuchs, 2019). The exclusion or superficial treatment of these issues suggests that economic benefits are prioritized over social justice and environmental sustainability.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Ikenson’s advocacy for the TPP is grounded in a liberal internationalist view that highlights the benefits of trade liberalization and institutional leadership. While there is empirical support for the positive economic impacts of such agreements, this perspective is also limited by its neglect of distributional issues, geopolitical strategies, and social-environmental externalities. Recognizing the multifaceted nature of the global economy requires integrating diverse theoretical insights to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the implications of trade policies like the TPP withdrawal. As global power dynamics evolve, policymakers must balance economic liberalization with considerations of justice, sustainability, and strategic stability.

References

• Bello, W. (2017). The Economics of the Global South: Beyond the Global North. Zed Books.
• Fuchs, D. (2019). Environmental Externalities in Global Trade: Challenges and Opportunities. Journal of Sustainable Development, 12(3), 22-35.
• Ikenberry, G. J. (2011). Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order. Princeton University Press.
• Keohane, R. O. (1984). After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton University Press.
• Krugman, P. (2018). International Economics. Pearson.
• Leong, K., & Collins, S. (2016). Rebalancing Power in Asia-Pacific: The Strategic Role of the TPP. Asian Security, 12(2), 129-143.
• Stiglitz, J. E. (2017). Globalization and Its Discontents. W.W. Norton & Company.
• Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391-425.
• World Bank. (2020). World Development Report 2020: Trading for Development in the Age of Global Value Chains. World Bank Publications.