Economic
liberalism is the idea that free markets stimulate the fastest economic growth
and the most efficiency (Mingst, McKibben & Arreguin-Toft, p. 271).
It argues that markets should be free from government interference to optimize
profits. While I wouldn't argue against this theory being accurate, the
reality is that for a few centuries economic liberalism was a mainstream
practice. When the Industrial Revolution gave record profits to
capitalists, economic liberalism created many social problems like labor rights
and environmental damage. Some countries, such as ours, have adequately
addressed the labor rights issues this created, but many others haven't, like
China and Bangladesh.
Mercantilists
wanted states to accumulate wealth and gold to guarantee power for a strong
centralized government (Mingst, McKibben & Arreguin-Toft, p. 271).
The goal for mercantilist states was to maximize exports by industrializing
their economies. They generally wanted governments to reduce imports and
encourage exports. Protectionism is similar in that seeks to create
policies that protect merchants from foreign competition, guarding against
domestic jobs being lost. The difference is that protectionism is more of
a passive way to encourage exports, while mercantilism seeks to actively expand
domestic markets through exports. Both would advocate increasing tariffs
or taxes on imports, but a mercantilist might take it a step further by
investing in domestic markets or by acquiring foreign markets for exports.
The
role of the state is to write fiscal, monetary, and microeconomic policies that
stimulate or slow down their economies (Mingst, McKibben &
Arreguin-Toft, p. 272). Among the fiscal policies involved are government spending
and tax rates. Monetary policies include the manipulation of interest
rates, while microeconomic policies regulate competition through things like
laws, subsidies, and antitrust actions. Multinational corporations (MNCs)
are a positive development according to supporters of economic liberalism (Mingst,
McKibben & Arreguin-Toft, p. 274). MNCs and economic liberalists
believe the market should regulate itself without government
interference. Like states, MNCs invest in foreign countries and import
and export goods. Unlike states, they try to avoid import barriers like
taxes and tariffs. International organizations like the World Bank, the
International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization work to promote
free trade between states to facilitate and regulate economic liberalism.
As
the world becomes more globalized, I believe the state will matter less in the
global political economy. MNCs may be globalized, but they are limited by
international laws and negotiations. That is why I think international
institutions are more important than both- because they are globalized and regulate
the political economy. While it may seem like large states such as the
U.S. sway the balance of these institutions in their favor (no doubt under the
influence of their MNCs), the progressive power of international institutions,
which have gained in size and strength over the years, leads me to believe the
trend will continue as states become more dependent on one another.
Incidentally, I think the Internet facilitates this movement by diluting
cultures across the globe, creating more tolerance on a grand scale. As
states become more tolerant and dependent on international politics, I think
these international institutions will strengthen as diplomatic sources,
offering a more stable global economy than in the past.
Sources:
Mingst,
Karen A., McKibben, Heather Elko, Arreguin-Toft, Ivan M. 2019.
Essentials of International Relations, 8th ed. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Canada.
No comments:
Post a Comment