classpresentation2 by WlT6NY

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 49

									Globalization And
International Relations
      Issues
   How To View International Trade?

   Sovereignty and Intervention

   The Diffusion of Power
    How To View International Trade?

    Globalization – The international
     process that leads to the worldwide
     integration of market-driven exchanges in
     goods, services, and capital.
    Is Economic Globalization (Trade)
    Beneficial to the Economy?
   Trade: a way to equalize prices in different
    places.
      Trade stimulated by possibility of buying something
      at low price in one place and selling it for a higher
      price in another.
     If goods are more expensive in one market, more
      supply will flow to higher-priced market.
     Competition presses prices down until comparable
      in different market.
     Free trade can contribute to economic growth.
       Major Anti-globalization Demonstrations.

        Washington, D.C. (1994): IMF/World Bank
        Seattle (1999): WTO ministerial meeting
        Prague (2000): IMF/World Bank meetings
        Quebec City (2001): Summit of the Americas
        Genoa (2001): Groups of Seven Summit
        Cancun, Mexico (2003): WTO conference
   The process of
    globalization
    promoted by WTO
    and efforts to stymie
    globalization
    represent
    fundamental puzzles
    about international
    political economy.
      Tension Between Efficiency and
      Equity.

   Globalization draws attention to government role
    in advancing/retarding trade liberalization.

   Governments routinely must choose between
    policies that advance efficiency and policies
    that advance equity.
 “Efficiency”: Consumers buy the best
  quality of goods at the lowest price, and
  producers sell their products at the best
  price.
 Governments do not interfere with a free
  market system.
   “Efficiency”: Consumers buy the best
    quality of goods at the lowest price, and
    producers sell their products at the best
    price.
 Governments do not interfere with a free market system.

 Efficient markets can be cruel.
  Those who are less competitive suffer.
   “Efficiency”: Consumers buy the best
    quality of goods at the lowest price, and
    producers sell their products at the best
    price.
 Governments do not interfere with a free market system.
 Efficient markets can be cruel.
 Those who are less competitive suffer.

 Without a social safety net like
    unemployment insurance, subsidies,
    progressive taxation, etc., they might not be
    able to survive.
   “Equity”: Governments can regulate
    markets and limit foreign companies’
    access to domestic market to protect
    domestic farmers or industries.

   Debate about globalization really is debate about
    equity.
   “Equity”: Governments can regulate
    markets and limit foreign companies’
    access to domestic market to protect
    domestic farmers or industries.
   Debate about globalization really is debate about equity.
   Opponents of globalization may accept that free
    trade promotes efficiency, but they believe free
    trade heightens inequity between/within countries.
   “Equity”: Governments can regulate
    markets and limit foreign companies’
    access to domestic market to protect
    domestic farmers or industries.
   Debate about globalization really is debate about equity.
   Opponents of globalization may accept that free trade promotes efficiency,
    but they believe free trade heightens inequity between/within countries.


   “The backlash against globalization draws
    its force from the inequalities in the global
    trading system.”
    (Joseph Stiglitz, a winner of the Nobel prize in
     economics)
                    Inter-country inequality:
                    countries in the world
                    (GDPPPP per capita 1950-2000) Branko Milanovic
                   0.560


                   0.540


                   0.520


                   0.500


                   0.480
Gini coefficient




                                                    World
                   0.460


                   0.440


                   0.420


                   0.400


                   0.380


                   0.360
                       50

                       52

                       54

                       56

                       58

                       60

                       62

                       64

                       66

                       68

                       70

                       72

                       74

                       76

                       78

                       80

                       82

                       84

                       86

                       88

                       90

                       92

                       94

                       96

                       98
                     19

                     19

                     19

                     19

                     19

                     19

                     19

                     19

                     19

                     19

                     19

                     19

                     19

                     19

                     19

                     19

                     19

                     19

                     19

                     19

                     19

                     19

                     19

                     19

                     19
                                             Year
Within-country inequality:
(person-based Gini from D-S database, 60’s-90’s)
Branko Milanovic
        40




        35



                      Mean


                                               Median
Ginis




        30




        25




        20
             1960's          1970's   1980's            1990's
    Inequality
   People who were living on less than $2 per day
    in 1998
     more than 2.8 billion!
   During 1990~1998:
     It increased by 100 million people!
     (World Bank 2000)
The composition of the Four Worlds in
1960 and 1998: (number of countries)


        Rich   Contenders   Third   Fourth
                            World   World
1960    41        22         39       25
1998    29        11         19       78
    Does Government have to Intervene?
   Absence of government intervention is a public good.

   Tariffs (protections) act as a private good.
   The benefits of protection are concentrated while
    the costs are diffuse.
   The greater private goods, the more likely interest
    groups and lobbyists exercise influence over political
    leaders.
   Difficulty in distinguishing protectionist plots from
    policies sincerely aimed at protecting consumers,
    environments, or a poor group.
    Is Economic Globalization (Trade)
    Beneficial to Peace?
    The Liberal Peace:
    “As the level of trade increases, the probability
     of interstate conflict will decreases.”
    Is Economic Globalization (Trade)
    Beneficial to Peace?
    The Liberal Peace:
    “As the level of trade increases, the probability of interstate conflict will decreases.”

     “The whole world is concentrating much of its
     thought and energy on attaining the objectives of
     peace and freedom. These objectives are bound up
     completely with a third objective – reestablishment of
     world trade. In fact, the three – peace, freedom,
     and world trade – are inseparable.”
     (President Truman, 1947).
       Neorealist View of Trade Policy

       States are security maximizers.
      One is made relatively worse off by cooperating
       because the other’s gains are larger than are one’s
       gains.
     “relative gains” are critical!
 Trade creates security externality.
         Relative gains can be converted into extra military
          spending
           power imbalance.
           Jeopardizes security!
       Asymmetric trade dependence may cause
        complains.

       Security externality may exist in theory.
         Too small to matter much to security in fact.

       Some states seek security by defense spending
        while other states seek wealth.

       The contribution of free trade to peace is still
        uncertain.
    Sovereignty and Intervention

 “Sovereignty”: A government’s absolute control of
  a territory within its borders in a legal sense.
 Outsiders should respect their sovereignty and
  territorial integrity.

 A growing list of problems or common issues that
   are beyond sovereign boundaries: climate change,
   AIDS, refugees, terrorism, human rights, racism,
   civil wars.
 “Intervention”: External actions that influence the
  domestic affairs of another sovereign state.

 Intervention Types: speeches, broadcasts, economic
  aid, military advisers, blockade, limited military
  action, military invasion.

 Is Intervention justifiable (when the sovereign state
  doesn’t ask any help)?

 Two partly contradictory bodies of international
 law.
 Charter of the United Nations.
   Chapter 1, Article 2.7

  “Nothing contained in the present Charter
   shall authorize the United Nations to
   intervene in matters which are essentially
   within the domestic jurisdiction of any state
   or shall require the Members to submit such
   matters to settlement under the present
   Charter….”
 Universal Declaration of Human
   Rights,General Assembly resolution 217 A
   (III), Article 22.
  “Everyone, as a member of society, has the
   right to social security and is entitled to
   realization, through national effort and
   international co-operation and in accordance
   with the organization and resources of each
   State, of the economic, social and cultural
   rights indispensable for his dignity and the
   free development of his personality.”
 Article 30.

   “Nothing in this Declaration may be
   interpreted as implying for any State, group
   or person any right to engage in any activity
   or to perform any act aimed at the destruction
   of any of the rights and freedoms set forth
   herein.”

 Respect sovereignty or Intervene for Justice?
 Examples.

 The NATO intervention in Kosovo: Was it
   illegal because it was not authorized by the
   U.N. Security Council? Or, was it legal under
   the evolving body of international
   humanitarian law?

 How about the failure of stopping the 1994
   Rwanda genocide?
 In 100 days, at least 800,000 people were
    killed.
 “... The world must deeply repent this failure.
    Rwanda’s tragedy was the world’s tragedy.
    …Looking back now, we see the signs which then
    were not recognized. Now we know that what we
    did was not nearly enough--not enough to
    save Rwanda from itself, not enough to
    honor the ideals for which the United
    Nations exists. We will not deny that, in their
    greatest hour of need, the world failed the people of
    Rwanda …”
    (Kofi Annan, the U.N. Secretary-General)
   Judging Intervention

 For the realists, the key value in international
 politics are “order” and “peace”.
  Intervention can be justified when it is
 necessary to maintain the balance of power.

 For cosmopolitans, the key value is “justice”.
     Intervention can be justified if it promotes
      justice of individuals.
 For state moralists, the key value is “the
 autonomy of the state and its people”.
 Intervention is rarely justified. War is
 justified to defend a state’s territorial integrity
 or to defend its sovereignty against external
 aggression.

 But, external aggression is often ambiguous.
  (E.g. Israeli attack on Egypt in 1967)
 A preemptive strike against an impending Egyptian
 attack?
 Who was the aggressor?
   Which view will you buy?

• “The norm of nonintervention remains
    important. Exceptions to nonintervention must
    be judged on a case-by-case basis by looking at
    the motives, means, consequences” (J. Nye).

    • Is an intervention resulted from good intentions?
    • Were there alternatives? Was intervention a last
        resort? Were there efforts to protect innocent life?
    •   What about the consequences and the danger of
        unintended consequences?
        The Diffusion of Power
   Information Revolution
   A diffusion of power away from central governments.
   Governments can’t keep their financial and political
    situations inside a black box.
   Transnational Actors
   Multinational corporations.
   Decide what to produce and whether to produce it at
    home or overseas.
   Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs)

 Transnational private organizations have increased:
                      26,000 (1990s)
                       2,000 (1970)
                       1,000 (1956)
                         176 (WWI).

 NGOs can represent broad public interests which might
    be easily ignored by states.
 Effects   of diffusion of Power?
 Much more awareness of what is going on in
  other parts of the globe. Groups are better able to
  organize on a global basis.

 Contradictory interests within nations and
  between transnational actors.  More
  complicated to understand international politics.
 Information revolution requires us of developing
 our own ability of judgment on various matters.
 Need to study political science harder!
    Why Political Science?
   Explanation: Political science is to explain
    why a particular event happens.
   Prediction: Once we understand why things
    happen, then we can make better predictions,
    and prescribe better policies.

 We need to be objective or scientific.
 Are you?
   No absolute objectivity!

    Various Perspectives
    exist.

    Open your mind, Look
    for information, and
    Build your own belief and
    position!
Questions?

								
To top