Exams
- What is the relationship between economic globalization and democracy? Critically examine the competing perspectives (500 -800 words).
Economic globalization heaps on the local institutions that voice democracy. The effective operations of markets locally and globally require integral system governance that upholds property ownership rights and economic integrity. Equality compels the government to obey the laws of the land respect human rights. Indulgence in non- governmental economies and international economic growth creates some level of transparency in the institutions and minimizes government intrusion (Rosow& George, 2014). All these accelerate democracy in global grounds. One standpoint claims that non-democratic governance closely associates with a drastic drop of GDP at the initial stages and as steady growth towards the end of the administration. Democracy, in this case, is a key determinant of economic globalization. Consequently, the principles of democracy liberate international trades where firms, small business and organizations enjoy the benefits directly or indirectly.
The second viewpoint relates democracy to economic globalization through autocracy and entrustment of authority. Economic globalization builds up democratic ideas beyond national borders. Most analysts if not all, insinuates that globalization means more states venturing into integration thus integrity in trades and financial transactions in the economic arena. Democracy promotes economic globalization amidst the allocation of leadership positions and the solution of social conflicts (Rosow& George, 2014). It creates a mutual rapport with the economy. For instance, the voters in a given state can advocate for powerful tradeoffs and obstructive impacts under a high level of education. The argument is predominantly factual in many countries where equality bonds international economic growth as one amongst other pivotal issues in the region to experience positive changes in a democratic system.
Another evaluation connects economic globalization and democracy through economic freedom and low inflation in the economy. Even though studies barely relates the direct upshots on democracy, factual shreds of evidence demonstrate an indirect effect and how the absence of the other leads to inflation. In the presence of peace and political stability, there spurs economic development that becomes globalized in due time (Steiner, 2010). Democracy creates the mutuality in the economic globalization through national regime and freedom of appointment of leaders to bring societal change. Democratic regimes empower businesses with a high human capital to expand their branches to other regions in the Northern and Southern hemisphere. Low inflation, on the other hand, puts the national treasury in a better position to fund its governance effectively.
The fourth outlook relates egalitarianism across the impacts of economic globalization. It debates the benefits of economic growth to democracy through the constrictions of revolution restraints. The impression that the affiliation is mutual means that in as much as democracy creates a higher human capital and free trades in the economy, it loosens the way of governance. It implies that the responsible authority allows workers to move to urban areas or international cities to work (Steiner, 2010). The political ties between nations nourish through a common market. Some literature claims that the relationship between classlessness and economic globalization is unfounded. However, the line still draws a conclusive argument that urbanization, industrialization, literacy and societal class is due to economic globalization.
The last competing perception on the correlation between economic globalization and democracy is the reduction of information costs and effectiveness of non-governmental and pro-democratic organizations. A successful democracy requires members who are well informed and this can only happen through economic globalization (Steiner, 2010). Nonetheless, economic globalizations shove a dictatorial leadership to regionalize its power. As the economic globalization grows, the governments have to weaken their authority over a business that creates a chance for small groups to get into politics. The public thus participates in the daily activities of the government to embrace democracy.
- Some scholars argue that we cannot understand the international political-economic interaction without taking the preferences of economic groups into account. Critically examine the society-centred/domestic-focused research approach to the determination of foreign economic policy (e.g. trade policy and various interest group’s trade preferences). Drawing on theoretical as well as empirical evidence, assess the strengths and weakness of the approach (500-800 words).
The society centred research approach on the foreign economic policy mainly associate with current local political parties or at times the tussle for popularity amongst the indigenous social forces. The state authority or institutions plays no role in the definition of foreign ec0onomy. However, the domestic-focused theory explains the foreign economic policy through interest groups and the number of assemblies that struggle to outdo each other in the policy grounds (Simmons, 2020). The approach arguably presents its thoughts against all other society centred approach as that which is the outcome of struggles amongst groups. For instance, labour unions can facilitate strikes for the betterment of working conditions for its members. The associations thus regard itself as the sole makeover in the definition and change of international economic policy. It means that in society based research approach, there are specific interest groups which consider themselves the key influence in policy pronouncement.
A practical example of such approach is the United States of America during the 18th century. During the pre and post-war periods, the country gains free trades and protectionists because of the competition amongst different interest groups. Frieden spearheads in the amendments of the American economic free trade. He argues that the state approach fails to adopt leadership responsibilities in correspondence to the American federal power. Conclusively, his efforts bear fruits and the country`s economy boosts due to the policy changes from Society based research methodology. In the oil industry, the domestic tactic helps united states to control the prices of fuel through interest groups. Goldenstein advocates for the government to consider availing platforms for different trade unions and other associations to compete in challenging the defective foreign policies.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Society Centered Research Approach
The domestic research approach has the main advantage in that it applies to all walks of life and reaches a wide audience. The government, in this case, provides a suitable arena for the interest groups to participate in the competition and does not influence their decisions. It is therefore logical that the theory promotes democracy and upholds human rights (Simmons, 2020). Additionally, the approach shoulders the empowerment process of the interest groups through involvement. The participants such as trade unions feel that their engagement somehow influences the status quo. The outcome of any policy is as a result of the capabilities of various groups of interest groups. The other advantage is that members get to appreciate the analytic primacy of their respective trade strategies.
Despite the various strengths of the domestic research approach, it fails to fully employ a conclusive and independent upshot on foreign economic policies especially those critical issues in which a lot is to be won or lost. It lacks the abilities to make decisions on social forces which are decentralized (Simmons, 2020). Generally, the society based approach lacks hypothetical dynamical value because of a weak power within the groups. More specifically, the theory faces high risks of repetitive aftermaths according to analysts and world scholars. It suggests that it is very difficult to make a predictive conclusion using the domestic approach to foreign economic policies.
References
Rosow, S. J., & George, J. (2014). Globalization and democracy. Rowman & Littlefield.
Steiner, N. D. (2010). Economic globalization and voter turnout in established democracies. Electoral Studies, 29(3), 444-459.
Simmons, B. A. (2020). Who adjusts?: domestic sources of foreign economic policy during the interwar years (Vol. 175). Princeton University Press.