Liberal democracy is a political philosophy that focuses on political rights. This paper introduces the main arguments presented in two Mearsheimers lectures, The False Promise of Liberal Hegemony and Can China Rise Peacefully? , to reveal the criticism of the liberal hegemony and to analyze the theory that explains the possible future of China. The arguments in the first lecture relate to the explanation of the liberal hegemony and how it leads to failure, concluding that it contradicts the countrys values. In the second lecture, his arguments are based on three assumptions: the United States is seen as Anarchy, it has the offensive military capability, and it cannot know the intentions of other States.
Mearsheimer has an opinion that the United States are addicted to war that happen due to the promotion of liberal democracy (Yale University, 00:29:30-00:29:37). The speaker gives an example of NATO expansion that is considered a cause of the war between Russia and Ukraine, and this war was not driven by a realist logic, just as the war between Russia and Georgia in 2008. For instance, the purpose of the conflict in Iraq was to turn it into a liberal democracy to stop wars in the Middle East (Yale University, 00:30:40-00:30:45).
He calls the idea of democratizing the Middle East foolish as that region did not have a democracy before, and the United States decided to do so at the end of a rifle barrel. This statement is opposite to the theory that states that democracies are more peaceful than authoritarian regimes as the wars are liberal driven. Hence, it proves that democratic countries have as many conflicts as other political philosophies, which can mean that liberal democracy may not be worth implementing all over the globe. I agree with the presented opinion as interfering in other nations business that has a different cultural background, and trying to change it is not a convenient approach.
Moreover, liberal hegemony leads to failure in many cases. The speaker presents various examples of countries, such as Iran, Iraq, and Syria, where the conflict happened on the grounds of promotion of the liberal democracy (Yale University, 00:35:20-00:35:45). As this regimen leads to conflict and promotes war, it prevents society from pursuing freedom. The United States is engaged in continuous warfare due to liberal hegemony, which contradicts the core values of the country.
Mearsheimer criticizes liberalism and liberal hegemony specifically, and he provides three reasons to explain why liberal hegemony is doomed. The first reason is that social engineering in foreign countries is a difficult enterprise (Yale University, 00:31:35-00:31:41). Foreign countries do not want foreigners to occupy their land. He gives an example of the U.S. blaming Russia for interfering in the 2016 election.
The U.S. tends to intervene in various circumstances and take steps that violate sovereignty to promote liberal democracy, and the consequences of this do not benefit American society. He then explains in the lecture, Can China Rise peacefully? that the United States can interfere in the other countries business as they have no security threats. This makes sense as it explains why the United States is the only country that has such a power to intervene in other countries business and why it desires to remain in this position.
The second reason is that nationalism is a remarkably powerful force. Mearsheimer puts it as Its not an easy sell (Yale University, 37:18-37:20). A semi-authoritarian system may work better for people than liberal democracy as this system is not easy to achieve. Moreover, not all people are willing to accept liberal democracy for a variety of reasons. I think that the cultural and national background may create conditions in which a person would feel more satisfied with the semi-authoritarian or other similar systems rather than liberal democracy. Even though it promotes peace in the world, it may not be accurate for specific countries; hence, it complicates the process of spreading liberal democracy.
The last reason states that individual rights are important to most people around the world, but they are rarely of great importance , meaning that the concept of individual rights is oversold (Yale University, 00:35:12-00:35:35). Therefore, the rights are not privileged by how theory implies, and people are willing to sacrifice rights for stability. Thus, by explaining three primary reasons, he argues that liberal hegemony does not have enough ground to exist. Even though I support liberal hegemony opposition, I believe that individual rights will remain the most important individual concept as it becomes the ground for the further development of society.
To present arguments in the second lecture, Can China Rise peacefully? , Mearsheimer first assumes that China will rise and develop over the next twenty to thirty years. He describes a situation that is more likely to happen when China becomes more powerful. The first assumption states that the United States is the principal in international politics; they operate in the Anarchic system that declares that there is no higher authority above the States (UChicago Social Sciences, 00:05:20-00:06:12).
The second assumption asserts that every State has some offensive military capability. The third assumption states that intentions cannot be predicted. The difficulty of intentions is in the inability to know how decision-makers will choose to act in the future. Therefore, it is opposite to the capabilities that can be measured. Moreover, the prediction is complicated as it is impossible to be certain who will be a president in the next ten years.
Therefore, the United States needs to be extremely powerful to provide security and avoid other countries capabilities and intentions that can cause a potential threat. Mearsheimer states that the United States needs to make sure you dont have peer competitors to be secure (UChicago Social Sciences, 00:18:57-00:19:00). That means that the United States does not want any other country to have such power. Other countries are more focused on their threats, which implies that they are not interested in the Western Hemisphere, which is the goal of the United States. This view presents the basic theory Mearsheimer describes in his lecture. The view makes sense when putting it together with the argument regarding the ability of the country to interfere in other countries business, as it explains why the United States wants to remain such an influential country.
Regarding the peers, the United States had four of them: Imperial Germany, Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union (UChicago Social Sciences, 00:23:30-00:23:37). The United States contributed to defeating all of the listed unions as they did not want to allow any of them to dominate. This example can be tightened to the theory the speaker presents in the first part of his lecture, as it clearly shows that the United States has not been tolerating peers.
The last argument he brings is that China will imitate the United States as the country will try to maximize its domination to ensure that the power gap between them and other countries such as Russia or Japan is wide. Chinese are powerful enough to imitate the United States as they can supply the military and implement the Monroe doctrine. However, the United States will not allow China to dominate Asia.
He also explains that India and the United States started having better relationships as both countries fear China (UChicago Social Sciences, 00:31:00-00:31:19). Hence, most Asian neighbor countries will be in the balance coalition of the United States as China is much more of a threat to them than the United States is (UChicago Social Sciences, 00:31:00-00:31:19). The last issue he brings up is the security dilemma, stating that anything that State does to defend itself looks offensive to the other side (UChicago Social Sciences, 00:32:21-00:32:28).
That means that it is challenging to distinguish between offensive and defensive capabilities. Hence, the United States can go into defense, which will make China feel offensive, and the conflict will take place. I believe that this course of events is possible only if China becomes as powerful as the United States. However, I also accept that China may decide to predict the United States opposition and choose a different path that does not require conflict with the U.S.
Therefore, the first lecture gives an understanding of why liberal hegemony is doomed and clarifies how it negatively affects society. This understanding helps to explain why the United States is actively involved in warfare and how liberal hegemony is connected to such events, which allows concluding that liberal democracy may not be accurate for every nation. In the second lecture, clear historical examples allow accepting the theory that Mearsheimer presents, and predict the possible course of events in the next 20 years. His assumptions help to reveal a branch of events in which China succeeds and gets into the conflict with the United States, which is one of the possible courses in the future.
References
UChicago Social Sciences. (2013). Can China rise peacefully? Web.
Yale University. (2017). The false promise of liberal hegemony. Web.
In the contemporary world, freedom is one of the most significant assets a human being has at his disposal. Without the liberty to express his or her will and to achieve set goals, a modern person is not able to function correctly. The political institutions and social environments that grant people the capability to act freely are all based on the ideology of liberalism. The history of this philosophy dates back to the 17th century, and the notion has seen many alterations and extensions.
The early version of liberalism, known today as classical liberalism, is primarily based on the concept of negative liberty. In todays fast-changing world, however, people do not need freedom from anything but require freedom for all activities needed to meet the economic and social demands of contemporary society. Therefore, classical liberalism should only be used as the foundation, but new endeavors should refer to the ideas of modern liberalism.
Overview
When assessing the overall conceptual array of liberalism, it is common to distinguish two stages in the genesis of liberal problems: classical liberalism (XVII-XIX centuries) and modern liberalism (late XIX early XX centuries) (Lichbach, 2017). Classical liberalism focused on the issues of political and economic freedoms, the natural rights of the individual, and the social contract (Mingardi, 2017).
The novelty of the ideas of classical liberalism is based on the European and North American interpretations of liberalism (Laski, 2018). In the United States, a split in liberal problems was manifested in the emergence of moderate and democratic variants of liberalism (Turner, 2016). In Europe, there was a separation of Anglo-Saxon and continental European liberal traditions (Laski, 2018).
Comparison of Classical and Modern Liberalism
All representatives of classical political economy built their concepts based on a single idea of human nature, society, and government. According to the classical liberal paradigm, all people have their own interests, and they have the capability to advocate for them most effectively (Hudson, 2017). This approach makes society a collection of individuals, and views the term public interests as a derivative of personal interests (Feng & Osborne, 2017).
The most reasonable society is the one that allows individuals to exercise their private interests freely. The government, according to classical liberals, is created by free people to protect the rights established by the constitution, and the state should be limited to this function (Mingardi, 2017). Since there are no objective methods that allow individuals to determine their preferences, it is the individuals themselves who must decide what is right and what is false, maximizing their utility function. However, relying only on the concepts provided by classical liberalism is not correct, because contemporary society and economy cannot function without required adjustments of the ideology.
The central problem of modern liberalism was the issue of social protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals. The idea was partially formed by the popularity of Marxism, within the framework of which the concept of social solidarity was developed (Schaefer, 2019). In classical liberalism, individual freedom based on fundamental principles took a central role (Mingardi, 2017). Individuals worth, their responsibility not only for society but also for themselves, a right for self-realization, free development, and self-affirmation are the building blocks of individual freedom (De La Vega, 2016).
The main difference between the problems of classical and modern liberalism is the understanding of the notion of liberty. For classical liberalism, as noted by Laski (2018), there was a characteristic tradition of interpreting freedom in a negative context, when it was believed that freedom is necessary for an individual to get rid of certain restrictions so that a person can do what he or she pleases. In modern liberalism, the concept of negative liberty is supplemented by the concept of positive liberty freedom for self-development and for expanding the spectrum of ones own capabilities (Turner, 2016). Positive liberty means a persons power over him or herself, over his or her desires, and the consistent rationalization of his or her own actions.
In classical liberalism, the states interference in the social sphere was limited. For modern liberalism, however, the idea of state regulation of the social sphere has become dominant, which is why modern liberalism is sometimes called the statist form of liberalism (De La Vega, 2016). All this required a change in attitude towards the state, which was already perceived as an instrument of expanding freedom, and not its limitation (Turner, 2016).
Relations between the state and individuals began to acquire a shape of partnership. On the one hand, there was a narrowing of the application of the liberal credo. In classical liberalism, the basic creed ( laissez faire ) was correlated only with freedom in the economic sphere (Laski, 2018). On the other hand, in modern liberalism, which is characterized by the gradual development of new spheres of social freedom, the liberal creed extended to new spheres of social life (De La Vega, 2016). Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the ideas of classical liberalism are not sufficient to cover all aspects of contemporary human activity.
Classical liberalism precluded government involvement in market relations; modern liberalism, on the contrary, welcomes government participation in a market economy in order to protect people from the injustices of the economic system (Lichbach, 2017). Modern liberals have achieved higher wages and shorter working hours, the right to organize various unions, the payment of unemployment benefits, and health insurance (Lichbach, 2017). In addition, they were able to achieve equal opportunities for all when entering educational institutions (Lichbach, 2017). At the same time, they wanted to raise taxes for the wealthy and not for the working class (Lichbach, 2017). A new wave of liberalism underlines the importance of freedom of speech and the press. These and other mentioned benefits portray the superiority of modern liberalism over its classical counterpart.
Conclusion
Despite differences between classical and modern liberalism, they should not be viewed as two separate and opposing ideologies. Modern liberalism is a derivative of the classical variant and uses its concepts while making required alterations and additions to meet the demands of contemporary politics and economy. The provisions of classical liberalism, particularly the notion of liberty, are not entirely appropriate for the contemporary world. For instance, a modern human being is in need of positive liberty because he or she often generates new ideas and wishes to achieve set goals. A persons ambitions cannot be fulfilled only with negative liberty. Therefore, modern liberalism fits into contemporary social and economic context much better than classical liberalism. However, it should be noted that classical liberalism will remain a fundamental building block of other branches of the ideology of liberalism.
References
De La Vega, R. G. (2016). Tolerance and modern liberalism: From paradox to aretaic moral ideal. London, UK: Rowman & Littlefield.
Feng, X., Li, W., & Osborne, E. W. (2017). Classical liberalism in China: Some history and prospects. Econ Journal Watch, 14(2), 218-240.
Hudson, S. (2017). Classical liberalism and indigenous policy. Policy: A Journal of Public Policy and Ideas, 33(4), 40-44.
Laski, H. J. (2018). The rise of European liberalism. New York, NY: Routledge.
Lichbach, M. I. (2017). Liberalism 1: The Role of Modern Liberalism. In M. Stohl, M. Lichbach, & P. Grabovsky (Eds.), States and peoples in conflict (pp. 32-49). New York, NY: Routledge.
Mingardi, A. (2017). Classical liberalism in Italian economic thought, from the time of unification. Econ Journal Watch, 14(1), 22-54.
Schaefer, D. L. (2019). Montaigne: Founder of modern liberalism. Perspectives on Political Science, 48(1), 33-45.
Turner, P. N. (2016). Mill and modern liberalism. In C. Macleod & D. Miller (Eds.), A companion to Mill (pp. 567-582). Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons.
Liberalism is no more than a notion from people, asserting that equal rights and freedom are critically fundamental in life. Modern conservatism is an idea that puts hope on the past, rather than the present, and is characterized by a society dominated by the powerful members and traditionalists-individualist contradictions based on politics, religion, and market. It is against the democracy and success of a society or simply, against equality and hence against liberalism.
Conservatism asserts that the prevailing conflicts result from excessive ruling and that God should be given the first priority. Modern liberalism on the other hand, holds that the ruling is just but a means of facilitating peoples fairness. Based on these differing principles, and given the two scenarios, a modern liberal would vote for proposition B, while a modern conservative would vote for proposition A.
Beliefs of modern conservatism
There exist quite a number of beliefs concerning the modern liberalism and conservatism. Modern conservatism has it that Gods law is the ruler of both people and the countries and should ever be in their hearts. It also asserts that life is the first god-given right, rendering killing a sin, and that marriage and family should precede the state and is subject to its security.
It gives a lot of weight to the freedom of conscience as crucial to the person. It is based on God and claims that he, and not the imperfect man, is the rights- giver. According to it, people should only do what God has termed as right regardless of mens views.
Beliefs of Modern Liberalism
Modern liberalism on the other hand follows from the industrial revolution and claims that a particular civilization and government need to be adopted. It holds that a mixed market is the only way to satisfy people requirements. It asserts that all people have rights that are natural and independent of the states and should be done at will.
It claims that people need not to do by force what others believe is right. It also holds that too much supervision is booster of slavery, rather than freedom and should be as limited as possible but efficient in protecting the people and their belongings. It not only campaigns for equality of people but also of life opportunities.
Classical vs. modern liberalism
There exist some parts of classical liberalism that have been adopted by the modern liberalism. For instance, the classical liberalism stresses much on limited government. Modern liberals argue that by minimizing this government, as before, the state can improve its liberty.
Modern liberalism has employed most of the themes developed by classical liberals. For instance, individuality, equality, and social justice form part of modern liberalism. Modern liberalism holds that decision making should be an individuals responsibility and should be considered, regardless of his/her gender, religion, or race.
Classical liberalism vs. modern conservatism
Modern conservatism has adopted various parts from the classical liberalism, based on the role of the government. The government, according to both liberalisms, should defend peoples possessions, life, and freedom. Modern conservatism has also employed the notion of excluding the government from the market, emphasizing the classical principle of limited government. This makes modern conservatism more of classical than modern liberalism. It is claimed that classical liberalism is todays conservatism.
Conclusion
The proposition demanding all levels of schools, elementary and secondary, to begin everyday by prayers, regardless of whether they are private or public conforms to the nature of a modern conservative because he/she centers everything on God and believes that all the rest (people) should follow suit. However, it is against the requirements of a modern liberal. He/she has it that, following the evident religious diversity, no government whatsoever should give a ruling that demands all to adhere to a specific religious issue like prayer.
However, if whatever is passed is beneficial to all, regardless of gender, religion, or race, like proposition B, it will be acceptable by a modern liberal. A modern liberal would vote for proposition B because he/she believes that peoples rights should be done at will. It gives people the opportunity of deciding for their government and not the government deciding for its people. It is built on the notion that people should be free to act.
It is totally against any force applied to people. The given proposition is forcing all the people to pray regardless of whether they are willing or not. Since this is against the principles of modern liberalism, a modern liberal ought to reject the proposition.
On the other hand, God plays a crucial role to the life of a modern conservative. Morality is their key teachings. He/she holds that that freedom is acquired and not innate and the state should come in, to protect it. A modern conservative teaching should agree with spiritual issues.
He/she believes that any ruling made by the government should be based on religious teachings. The given proposition is supporting the moral issue of prayer that modern conservatives rely on. Therefore, proposition A would be highly welcomed by the modern conservatives since it is part of what they believe in.
West is of the view that blacks in the United States are different from those in other parts of the world because of the exceptional levels of unregulated and uncontrolled violence that is always directed towards them. In this regard, the black people are socialized to hate themselves, something the author terms as psychic violence, which is reinforced by the state apparatus. He suggests that the government has been collaborating with the owners of the means of production to exploit the black by forcing them to work without adequate compensation for over four-hundred years. The conditions that blacks are taken through are compared to terrorism since they are often lynched without sufficient reason while the state is reluctant to formulate strong policies to contain the problem. In addition, he underscores the fact that American barbarism is real since the state allows slave trade to go on while people are forced to work without pay, yet the government does not intervene (West 67).
Because of continuous oppression and inhuman maltreatment, blacks are forced to resort to crime, such as drug trafficking, prostitution, money laundering, and carjacking for survival. Unfortunately, America is perceived as a representative of democracy due to the structure of its government, the performance of the economy, establishment of a stable criminal justice system, enhanced education system, the development of the mass media, and the diverse culture. While other people view these as important rudiments of democracy, West is pessimistic in the sense that they simply help the white race to subjugate the blacks. He concludes that the biggest challenge facing the country in the twenty-first century is the problem of color line.
West goes on to suggest that economic structures have tremendous effects on the performance of blacks since they deny them an opportunity to participate in economic matters given the fact that modern politics can only be played with adequate money. In this case, he suggests the role of any government should be to prevent the excessive use of economic powers against the poor because influential economic institutions in the country serve the interests of the white race while the black race exists at the mercy of the rich. While commenting on the liberalist /conservative debate, he claims that people should go beyond the simple discussions and look at the real issues that face the poor who are mainly blacks in the country (Mahoney 43).
For instance, many blacks are faced with the major challenge of unemployment owing to the fact that the education system is unfavorable to them, as it simply presents opportunities to the white race. Various states report depressing statistics about the blacks as regards infant mortality rates, imprisonment, adolescent pregnancies, and violent crimes. The idea of freedom and the right to own property is a mirage for many blacks since the state does not provide equal opportunities as suggested by liberalists who claim that the main role of any political system is to facilitate an enabling environment that guarantees individual fulfillment.
West ends up claiming that the ongoing liberalist/conservative debate simply conceals the real problem facing the American society, which is a nihilistic threat to its existence. Apart from subjecting blacks to conditions that deprive them of their economic and political rights, they are taken through depressing situations that affect their physical and psychological health (West 87). Depression, individual worthlessness, and social despair are some of the features that characterize the lives of black Americans.
West observes that supporters of liberal structuralism are wrong because of two major reasons, one being their overemphasis on economic and political problems implying they neglect cultural aspects, which are very important in understanding human relations. Structural liberalists view people based on their egos and rational decisions implying people are simply driven by their selfish interests. Unfortunately, depressed individuals are concerned with the issue of identity and the sense of worth. Secondly, structural liberalists cannot be relied upon because they fail to attach meaning to the lives of people, as they avoid talking about peoples values and belief systems.
Conservatives are concerned with the way people interact in any given society, especially concerning their cultural aspects. Without the understanding of cultural issues, such as religion and value system, it would be difficult to comprehend their expectations, aspirations, and desires in life (Grady-Willis 12).
For structural liberalists, the government is always perfect in what it does because it aims at achieving the public good, which is not always the case. The reality is the state exists to fulfill the interests of the owners of the means of production and its officials are a committee of the ruling class. To this extent, the views of West are accurate because structuralism does not facilitate the understanding of groups and their aspirations leading to violation of individual rights and freedoms. The mass media, the governmental machinery, and religion are some of the instruments employed effectively in extending oppression against the blacks in the United States. The democratic principles do not help the minority blacks since they deny them an opportunity to participate in governmental decision-making.
Works Cited
Grady-Willis, Winston A. Challenging U.S. Apartheid: Atlanta and Black Struggles for Human Rights, 1960-1977. Durham: Duke University Press, 2006. Print.
Mahoney, James. The Legacies of Liberalism: Path Dependence and Political Regimes in Central America. Baltimore ;London: Johns Hopkins Univ. Pr, 2001. Print.
Growing inequality, when a small group of people concentrates most of the worlds capital in their hands and the majority of the population is on the threshold of poverty, catalyzes controversial debate. However, the situation in the United States, in which over the past 40 years, incomes of 50% of the low-income population have increased by only 1%, while 1% of the US elite has achieved 205% growth does not contradict the logic of classical libertarianism. The representative of the latter is Robert Nozick.
Following the release of A Theory of Justice by John Rawls in 1971, which marked a milestone in the development of the enlightenment project, Nozicks Anarchy, State and Utopia, published in 1974, represented the application of the methods of analytical philosophy to the construction of an argumentative political concept. The minimal state is a night watchman, whose functions are limited to protecting all citizens from violence, theft and fraud, as well as enforcing contracts, etc., gave a new impetus to libertarian discussions, the quintessence of which was the question of taxes.
The fundamental difference between Nozicks minimal state and the conventional understanding of this concept is that his state does not collect taxes to finance its functions (Moore, 2020). Taxing the wealthy to help the poor is nothing more than violence against the wealthy. Moreover, containing a portion of my profits is tantamount to forced labor. For example, if the state considers it normal to collect 30% of my arguments, then it can equally force me to work 30% of my working time for the state. Sharpening the thesis, isnt forced labor called slavery?
Libertarianism, moving into the mainstream of classical liberalism, exists in the conditions of diverse discourses, between which there is no conversion. Considering himself a true deontologist, Nozick proclaims the independence of the distribution of goods from subjective ideas about the good for the simple reason that we will never reach an agreement on these very concepts of the good. Thus, as the true master of myself, I must inevitably be recognized as the sole owner of the results of my labor. Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is all the same stealing, no matter whether it was committed by Robin Hood or by the state. In other words, according to Nozick, at the center of the question of taxation is not money but human freedom.
For a compelling analysis of any crucial political aspect of the country, it is necessary to conduct a comparative analysis. Health insurance is a controversial issue with different views and positions. It is known that the two powerful political forces in the US are the Democrats, with more liberal views, and the Republicans, with more conservative views. The chosen policy issue is whether health insurance should be free. The purpose of this paper is to analyze this issue and demonstrate how the relationship between Democrats and Republicans differs. Points such as key points, sub-issues, and ideological and political positions related to the issue will be analyzed.
Discussion
It is worth mentioning that the US healthcare system is a complex system and a leader in terms of the resources concentrated in it. Moreover, healthcare in the country is one of the leaders in terms of scientific research and adequate provision of services for patients (Buchbinder et al., 2019). However, there is a significant problem for which the US healthcare system is often criticized. Namely, the fact that a lot of the population cannot afford health insurance due to a significant increase in prices. Part of the population does not have health insurance, and others do not receive services in full. In this regard, the issue of free medical insurance is relevant and has many aspects for discussion.
Speaking about the positions of Democrats and Republicans on this issue, it is worth noting that they differ significantly. Thus, the liberal point of view is formulated by the fact that health insurance should be free or inexpensive. Moreover, it should be controlled by the state, that is, the government should manage the fundamental processes of development and problem-solving (Buttice, 2019). The political position of the Democrats is built on the fact that millions of Americans cannot afford health insurance. In turn, it negatively affects their level and quality of life, which is unacceptable. Moreover, the liberal sub-issue lies in the fact that unfettered access to health services is a basic human right.
In addition, the liberal position implies some ideological narratives that emphasize the importance of this aspect for the country. For example, every American has the right to affordable and quality healthcare. Thus, the significance of this for the economy and the countrys image is emphasized since the nations health affects the workforce. In addition, the health care system and the populations opinion about it usually demonstrate the countrys degree of development. Further, the liberal position implies the thesis that the government should provide several items related to these aspects. The most crucial point is that the population should be granted equal benefits for everyone, regardless of their ability to pay. Thus, this position emphasizes the campaign for equal rights, which is a solid political factor.
In turn, the conservative point of view consists of opposite aspects. Certainly, it does not negate the importance of the health care system for the country and its accessibility to society. However, it takes a different approach, which is more pragmatic and of a different nature. Thus, the position of the Republicans on this issue is that the state should maintain a competitive healthcare system (Uslu et al., 2020). In turn, it can be achieved through the fact that the state and enterprises will take as a basis a market approach in terms of the health care system. In other words, the position emphasizes the importance of this for the countrys economy and considers healthcare as a business model that can improve or worsen the financial situation of the state.
It is worth noting that the conservative position also takes as a basis the thesis that every American has the right to health care. However, the main point is the economic factor, namely, who should pay for medical services and insurance. The central thesis about free medical care and insurance is the fact that it will lead to higher costs. That is, social medicine is not an effective method since it provides equally low-quality services for the population. Thus, Republicans believe that the health care system should remain privatized. Moreover, the problem of a large number of uninsured people should be solved within the framework of a market-based healthcare system. The conservative point of view does not consider free insurance effective and insists that the state should not control it.
Conclusion
To conclude, after analyzing the liberal and conservative positions on free health insurance, one can notice their differences. The central thesis of the Democrats is the fact that every American should have equal conditions in the medical aspect, regardless of social status. In turn, the Republicans insist that free insurance would be inefficient for the countrys economy and that the health care system should have a market nature. Given all the facts and arguments, my position is average but has some bias toward the liberal approach. That is, medical insurance should not be completely free, however, it should not always be covered by a citizen. Thus, for people with financial problems, it should be covered by special funds that government must create in advance.
References
Buchbinder, S. B., Shanks, N. H., & Kite, B. J. (2019). Introduction to health care management. (4th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Buttice, C. (2019). Universal health care. ABC-CLIO.
Uslu, D., Dincer, Y., & Serhat, D. Y. (2020). Multidimensional perspectives and global analysis of universal health coverage. IGI Global.
The term green liberalism has been used to embrace those who have integrated green politics in their ideologies. These people value the earth highly and are committed to ecological and environmental sustainability (Jamison 2001). Green liberals acknowledge the dynamic aspects of the global systems but emphasize on the minimal damage of the environment and helps in the restoration of the damaged areas. Green politics has been a very dominant topic in the present political and moral debates. Green politics has led to heated debates among the scholars and the environmentalists on its definition and its political repercussions (Terrence & Dagger 2003).
Even though the origin of green politics can be traced back to the 19th centurys growth of industrialization and urbanization, the contemporary green debate began in 1962. These debates emphasized on the link between environmental degradation and industrialization (Anil et al. 2001). Richard Carson in 1962 disclosed the presence of natural restrictions to economic growth and development, an idea that violated one of the major principles of the contemporary leading liberal ideology (Jamison 2001). Since then, the question of whether environmental subjects should be incorporated in political ideologies has been a major topic of debate.
Some political experts view the green liberal solutions as a remonstration, agenda-led and transient political phenomena, while others place green thinking under the contemporary social movement. In general, there are those who attempt to incorporate environmental concern into the present school of thought and those who acknowledge the uniqueness of the green perspective and its broadness as a novel political point of view (Jennifer 2000).
The argument fronted by the first group of experts is that though green thinking is very helpful in environmental protection, neither the social objective nor a political direction for its attainment can be derived straightforwardly from the ecological point of view. Millan (2000) argued that while different types of social and political orientation match with green objectives, traditional non-environmental measures are required to settle on a political arrangement that is sustainable for both the society and the economy at large (Millan 2000). In William (2003) opinion, environment forms part of political theory but do not provide the foundation for such theories.
In economic matters, the green liberals fall between the classical liberals and the social liberals. In other words, green liberals favor minimal government interference similar to the social liberals, but more than the classical liberals (Terrence & Dagger 2003, Eckersley 2001). A number within the green liberal circles follows free market environmentalism similar to the classical liberals. This is the main reason why we have witnessed the blue green coalition in the global political domain.
Green liberal movements such as the Canadian Liberal Party, Green Party of Germany, and the Value party of New Zealand among others place the environmental sustainability as their main agenda among other political objectives (Wall 2010). There has been an increased cooperation among the green movements all over the world. The first global meeting of the greens was held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and the second in Sao Paulo in 2008. Besides the global green gatherings, there have also been a number of meetings all over the world whose main agenda is sustainable development such as the one that was held in Johannesburg, South Africa (Wall 2010, Anil et al. 2001).
Green liberal theory
The main characteristic of the green liberalism is the belief that nature is an inter-connected entirety that encompasses human, non-humans and non-living world. Green ideology rejects the belief that may result to the formation of a concept that humans are the most superior species. As per the green thinking, nature has an inherent value regardless of whether or not it has value for human beings. This essential principle of green thinking stresses that everything on this planet forms part of the biotic community. They form a huge web of complex relationships, linkages and possibilities (Wissenburg 1998).
Many of the green values follow from the acknowledgment of the interconnection and interdependency of all the living and non-living things in the planet. The first of these values, which is the respect for life, stresses that all forms of life should be respected (that is human, animals whether visible or invisible and plants).
The green therefore values political and social efforts that are aimed at protecting the conditions that takes care of or sustain all forms of life. This highlights the distinctiveness of green viewpoint from other political theories. The greens ecological point of view of nature and human beings challenges the idea of human being as the centre of existence, a concept that all other political theories are based on (Wissenburg 1998).
Green politics is not restricted to environmental issues contrary to the common belief. Greens are seeking ways of dealing with causes of the growing human problems and challenges. Greens are also advocating for sustainable ideas on the social, political and economic arena. The code of sustainability as a condition for survival is a wide strategy envisaging change in all facets of human existence (Wissenburg, 1998).
Green theory draws our attention to the fact that separates attempts to clean up our environment or save our ecological units from extinction to provide the solution to our irresponsible ecological practices that have jeopardized the well-being of the current and future generations of life in the planet (Dave 2000).
Green thinking is also different from other political theories in the view that human beings are constituents of nature and the spontaneity of humans has explanatory and normative significance for the political theory (Wissenburg 1998). However, as an emerging theory, the greens still have to provide clarification of their positions regarding a number of subjects.
For example, the greens are well known for their dedication to decentralized democracy. Up to now, the greens support social organizations in undersized, decentralized communities, where straight democracy is followed. Nonetheless, it remains to be seen if the decentralized systems certainly results to a more democratic and equitable society (William 2003).
Green theory mainly relies on scientific theories relating to the physical world in its formulation of the theory of nature and the place of humans in nature. The green concept of nature draws its facts from the 20th century scientific understanding of the universe, which has made the universe more complex than before. Therefore, the green theory signifies a complete novel approach to the concepts of nature and the goal of an environmentally sound society (Leslie 1999).
Green and Liberal ideology
According to Terrence & Dagger (2003), ideologies originate out of a crisis. The 20th century has seen wanton destruction of the planets ecology. Liberal ideology explains the environmental crisis in terms of individual, personal property and market interrelations. According to the liberal ideology, individuals should be free to chase their interests and free of state interference, particularly in their private economic activities.
Individual economic activities on a liberal perspective emphasizes on optimizing private material benefits. This behavior is natural, since human beings are naturally self-centered and interested in their own gains. This behavior, according to the liberal ideology does not contribute to ecological destruction since capitalist economy does not tolerate wastefulness and inefficiency (Terrence & Dagger 2003).
Liberalist view wastage of common resources in a capitalist economy not as a crisis but as a probable outcome. In case of environmental degradation, ecological resources should be privatized and its use controlled by the market forces. According to the principles of liberal ideology, the remedy for environmental crisis is privatization and non-regulation of the natural resource utilization (Terrence & Dagger 2003). Liberalist believe escalated demand for a particular resource will increase its value and cost and therefore slow down its usage to the uttermost efficient level (Robin 2001).
Conversely, green ideology provides a different explanation to the fundamental basis for the ecological crisis. The perseverance of an ecological crisis, despite of privatization and deregulations of the use of ecological resources, have shown some weakness on the liberal ideology. Green ideologists believe that all our problems for most part results from our intellectual relationship with the surrounding and the practices that stem from our acquired knowledge.
According to the greens, anthropocentrism is the major cause of imbalance between human beings and the rest of the natural world (Terrence & Dagger 2003, Eckerseley 2001). Anthropocentrism has resulted to disregard for nature and motivated the growth of unsustainable economy. Both liberal and green ideology explains the causes of the environmental crisis and provides their analysis of the situation and set strategies to address the same (Porritt 2000).
From the liberal ideology, economic growth is viewed positively and is seen as the necessary factor for maintaining high consumption level, which is tantamount to higher social mobility. However, the green ideology views economic growth as increase in exploitation of natural resources, thus harmful to the ecology, human health and does not represent upward social mobility (Pearson 2000).
Greens do not totally condemn industrialization, but opposes the high level of activity emerging from industrialization aimed at achieving rapid economic growth, increased consumption and large-scale production. Instead, greens are advocating for localized economies where individuals can asses their impact on environment and implementation of modified lifestyles that are less destructive to the environment (Porritt 2000).
Green liberal solutions
Green liberals constitute socio-political movement whose main agenda is the well-being of the planet earth and sustainability for the future generations (William 2003). The main objective of the green liberals is to minimize reckless destruction of the environment resulting from economic activities and to protect the endangered species of plants and animals. The green liberals acknowledges the fact that natural world is changing and cannot be maintained as it is (Charles 2001).
Green liberals draw their socio-political standpoint from different sources ranging from the values of native peoples, to the ethics of the great personalities like Mahatma Gandhi. These personalities advocated for green thinking throughout their public life and encouraged each and every individual to take personal responsibility in the protection and conservation of the environment (Davidson 2000).
The green liberal economics emphasizes on the significance of the healthiness of the part of the earth inhabited by the living organisms (biosphere) to the well being of the humans. They view globalization as a threat since its eroding the indigenous cultures and the natural environment (Anil et al. 2001).
Green liberals promote decentralization and participatory democracy up to the grass- root level. According to green liberals each and every citizens should be give an opportunity to participate directly on issues that affects their eco-social well being. Decentralization and direct democracy encourages accountability and responsibility at an individual level in matters relating to the environment.
Therefore, green liberals are seeking ways of enhancing the role of planned democracy, founded on direct involvement of the citizens and building of consensus in decision making whenever possible. The main goal for this is to enhance responsibility and accountability at anindividual level. (Wall 2010).
Green liberal ideologies have encouraged political actions at the individual level, for instance ban on plastic bags considered environmentally unhealthy and production of environmentally friendly products. Governments policies on emissions and waste disposal are also clearly defined following the green principles. Green liberals promote bio-diversity, reclamation and conservation of natural ecology, enhancing peace among citizens and nations, encouraging local food production among other measures (Kimbrell 2002).
Conclusion
The main difference between the greens and the liberals is how they both understand nature and the place of human beings in nature. Liberals view the natural world as an open-ended system where unlimited economic growth is achievable while the greens view the natural world as a closed system. Capitalist economies have attempted to fuse the green and liberal ideologies to get the solution to the current ecological problems facing the world.
Green liberalism advocates for sustainable methods of production and consumption to avert the present global environmental degradation. Sustainable development aims at regulating the rate of economic growth while at the same time restricting and re-evaluating the consumption patterns. Green liberals have also been in the forefront in advocating for zero-carbon emission. Carbon emission is attributed to the global warming and the changing climate patterns.
References
Anil, A., Sunita, N., & Anju, Sharma. 2001. Green Politics: Polluter says Principle. New Delhi: Centre for Science and Environment.
Charles, T. 2001. Early Modern Philosophy: A Companion to Environmental Philosophy. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.
Dave, T. 2000. Green Radicalism Side Show or a New Alternative? Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 4: pp. 443-450.
Jamison, A. 2001. The Making of Green Knowledge: Environmental Politics and Cultural Transformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jennifer, C. 2000. The Global Economy and Environmental Change in Africa: Political
Economy and the Changing Global Order. Eds. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Julie, D. 2000. Sustainable Development: Business as Usual or a New Way of Living? Environmental Ethics, Vol. 22: pp. 25-42.
Kimbrell,A. 2002. Fatal Harvest: The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture. Washington:
Island Press.
Leslie, T.1999. Environmentalism for a New Millennium: The Challenge of Co-evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Millan, Brian. 2000. Designing the Green Economy: The Postindustrial Alternative to Corporate Globalization. Boston: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Robin, E. 2001. Politics: A Companion to Environmental Philosophy. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers Inc.
Pearson, C. 2000. Economics and the Global Environment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Porritt, J. 2000. Playing Safe: Science and the Environment. New York: Thames & Hudson Inc.
Terence, B., & Dagger, R. 2003. Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal. 5th ed. New York: Pearson Education Inc.
Wall, Derek. (2010). The No-Nonsense Guide to Green Politics. Oxford: New Internationalist Publications.
William, S. 2003. Ideology, Social Theory, and the Environment. Boston: Rowman &Littlefield Publishers Inc.
Wissenburg, M. (1998). Green Liberalism: The Free and the Green Society. London: UCL Press.
There are many concepts of education that view the place and role of students from different perspectives. Thomas Henry Huxleys theory approaches learning as part of learning about the laws of nature. The latter is seen as a game with its own rules and laws, which can be comprehended in different ways. Comparing formal education with the process of learning in the context of surviving in the environment, the author claims there are no uneducated people in the world.
Discussion
People begin to learn about nature long before they enter their first educational institution. Hence, there is a difference between formal education, which gives academic skills and knowledge, and natural education, which operates with the help of feelings. Each person is introduced to the world through the senses: Nature would begin to teach him, through the eye, the ear, the touch, the properties of objects. The common point between formal education and natural one is that they bring people closer to the environment. However, minimal understanding can only come through bodily contact or sensation, which shows how to act rightly or wrongly in certain circumstances.
The purpose of formal education is to adapt students to a further, more complex understanding of the world. According to the author, The object of what we commonly call education in which man intervenes and which I shall distinguish as artificial education to make good these defects in Natures methods; to prepare the child to receive Natures education. The author claims that formal education serves as a tool for learning the world, but it does not mean that a person who has not attended a school or a university can be called uneducated. The study of nature in terms of various social institutions involves an adaptation to how the world can affect a man and how to properly read and apply it to ones life.
Conclusion
Thus, education is not an indicator that can be evaluated in terms of its presence or absence in a persons life. It is a natural process, triggered from the first minutes of a childs life and not entirely with the workings of the mind or even the intellect. Sense organs, emotions, and sensations, which, like many thousands of years ago, tell people the rules of existence.
Currently, liberalisation has emerged as a current trend occurring in both developed and developing countries. A country may institute financial liberalisation among its financial institutions due to various reasons. For instance, these countries aim at accelerating the growth and development of domestic financial markets and institutions to achieve efficiency in the allocation of domestic capital and ensuring equitable sharing of individual risks.
In addition, while allowing financial liberalisation, most developing countries aimed at attracting developed countries and investors to pump capital into their economy; hence, financing higher growth coupled with investment (Bodie, Kane & Marcus 2005). Insurance against aggregate shocks and reduction of consumption volatility was also another conventional view that led to countries adopting the concept of financial liberalisation.
However, researchers and scholars have proved the aspects and conventional views on financial liberalisation as inappropriate elements. The latest financial and economic crisis that rocked the world in 2008 called for re-examination of the need to implement financial liberalisation.
However, this aspect does not mean that financial liberalisation does not have some benefits attached to it. A number of studies carried out demonstrated that financial liberalisation could initiate growth among financial markets and organisations (Fry 1995). For instance, financial liberalisation may call for a positive effect on growth rates, due to increment in the level of interest rates. Elimination of controls on interest rates and their upwards movement can stimulate a higher level of savings.
At this point, an assumption is made that higher interest rates would increase financial intermediation. In response to financial liberalisation, economic development can be fostered due to changes in quality and the quantity of investment (Nier 2009).The aim of this paper is to discuss the impact of premature financial liberalisation on microeconomics and financial stability of an economy.
Impacts on macroeconomics and financial stability
Effects on rate of savings and investment
One of the roles of liberalisation is to remove rigidity in the control of rates of exchange and rates of interest, compulsory allocation of credits from banks, and quantitative limitations in credit given to the private sector by banking institutions.
These aspects were part of the common practices among developing countries, hence causing inefficiencies that resulted into low direct investment. Current studies and evidence established shows that high rates of interest and financial depths due to financial liberalisation does not exclusively lead to increased savings and investment.
In most developing countries, financial reforms due to liberalisation lead a decrement in savings. Financial reforms adopted thereafter lead to the relation of credit constraints, thus increment in the alternatives available for borrowing, hence decreasing private savings. For instance, it was noted that financial reforms due to liberalisation led to decreased rate of savings in France, though there was a reversal on the negative perception between rates of interest and savings.
This was the same case with the United Kingdom, while further research revealed significant explanations on the evolution of savings. While some countries depicted a negative trend in private savings due to financial liberalisation, Chile was one of the countries where liberalisation had a positive contribution as it led to an increment in the countrys rate of growth.
Inadequate financial stabilisation measures
Countries should be warned against premature implementation of financial reforms due to liberalisation. This assertion means that there should be a careful evaluation of the reform to ascertain its benefits and disadvantages to the economy (Corrado & Jordan 2005). Due to controversies that lie behind financial liberalisation, all countries should scrutinise a reform thoroughly before implementation, as the outcome may not be desirable.
However, economists have asserted that financial liberalisation has risks attached to it, and thus it should be evaluated carefully to enjoy its benefits. For instance, excessive and rapid financial reforms are not desirable for they lead to credits that are difficult to sustain and increment of activities that lead to financial crises in an economy (Fry 1995).
In the absence of relevant and adequate measures or regulations, risks obtained increase significantly, hence affecting both banking institutions and capital markets. Close link between financial institution crisis and liberalisation is another sign of increased fragility nature of financial systems (Corrado & Jordan 2005). From the survey carried out by researchers on the banking crisis that took place from 1980 to 1995, it was evident that a crisis is more likely to occur within a financially liberalised economy.
The study was carried out on 53 developed and developing countries. Findings stated that in the process of initiating financial reforms due to liberalisation, domestic banks are subject or exposed to external shocks especially where the system of banking is not developed sufficiently. However, banking crisis could be due to extremely high growth especially in the countries where there are imperfections in the credit market.
Effects on banks and other financial institutions
In a developing country, financial liberalisation can yield negative results if not evaluated keenly before implementation for the existence of poor supervision of institutions and inefficient sectors accompanied with poor governance create loopholes for arbitrage and other uneconomical practices (Corrado & Jordan 2005).
Following financial liberalisation, there will be the establishment and mushrooming of banks, which tend to purchase foreign currencies at lower rates than the officially stipulated rates (Toporowski 2005).They later resell the foreign currencies to other forex exchange bureaus to make substantial returns.
The short-term arbitrage activities lead to poor closing balances and financial performance, as there are restricted towards lending to the private sector. This scenario leads to the rise of systematic risk in the banking sector with some banks landing into liquidation due to financial distress. Various macroeconomics variables are significantly sensitive to policies and reforms connected to financial liberalisation (Toporowski 2005).
They tend to depict a significant difference in their performance before and after the implementation of financial liberalisation. These variables include the real gross domestic product, foreign direct investment, and national savings. However, there may be insignificant or no effect at all on the rate of inflation and the countrys financial depth.
With disregard to many controversies surrounding financial liberalisation, some researchers affirm that there are advantages behind it; for instance, it has been argued that financial liberalisation and integration helps in improving functionality of various financial systems and institutions. This aspect results into increased funds as well as their availability. In addition, when countries are allowed to trade across borders, there is a tendency to diversify and spread risks over a wide region (Helleiner & Pagliari 2010).
For instance, researchers note that most international capital market can channel their savings to most productive utilisation without restriction on location. Others also argue that due to financial liberalisation, accountability and transparency improve. When investors place their money in foreign companies, they tend to be cautious; therefore, placing extreme emphasis on the accountability of their funds.
Companies are required to submit regular reports on the usage of funds to the investors, which leads to the reduction in the adverse selection of a country and multinationals to invest. In addition, moral hazards will be curtailed since the immoral practices will be defaulted by accountability, hence reducing liquidity problems in the market.
Moreover, the authorities in charge of international capital market help to discipline formulators of economic policies who may have malicious attempts of boycotting and exploiting the domestic capital market. With many studies carried out in relation to impacts of financial liberalisation, a majority of them have not helped in resolving a conflict that exists between those supporting financial liberalisation and those against it as a stimulator of economic growth.
Transparency and accountability
Although financial liberalisation stipulates measures that ensure transparency and accountability of funds in an economy, the measures suffer shortcomings largely (Shelagh 2005). For instance, they are not a true reflection of the extent of openness of capital accounts of various countries, which could be the reason for they are based on various restrictions in relation to exchanges and foreign transactions.
Measures stipulated may not be effective in capturing the required degree of stringent capital controls, hence being subject to change especially where legal restrictions are not changed. Moreover, the regulations fail to show actual integration of a financial status of an economy into the international capital market (Stiglitz & Uy 1996).This move leads to the inability to stop the inflow of speculative capital as experienced by some economies such as that of China.
Impact on capital flows
According to neoclassic economists, capital flows due to liberalisation result to drain of capital from some economies. For instance, rich countries have a notion that they are rich; consequently, they pump most of their capital into poor economies.
They do so for the poor economies return higher capital to the investor as compared to the amount invested initially (Goonatilake & Herath 2007). However, this aspect is a dangerous speculation especially when investing in a developing economy. These economies have poor structures and thus incur huge losses where investments occur blindly.
Capital inflows to poor economies serve as a complement for the limited resources and savings done domestically (Goonatilake & Herath 2007). However, it leads to reduction in the cost of capital, which leads to increased investment. In addition, increased funding leads to acquisition of technology in excess, and thus an improvement of the management coupled with other functions performed by an organisation. This element also results to the flow of advanced expertise from advanced economies (Lewis & Misen 2000).
Sharing of risks is a way though which specialisation propagates within a liberalised economy, which in turn fosters development and growth within a domestic financial sector and the overall economy. This scenario is the case as financial liberalisation imposes different disciplines in relation to policies regarding macroeconomics, hence stable policies.
However, researchers have expressed some challenging issues in defining the relationship between capital flow due to liberalisation and growth depicted. However, without careful scrutiny, this problem can hardly be recognised, especially when one solely relies on data generated through macroeconomics (Mishkin 2001). The reason behind this assertion is that strong statements on financial liberalisation can hardly be made without reliance on micro or macroeconomics data utilised in the study.
Volatility of outputs
Financial liberalisation has various effects on volatility of outputs. Due to financial liberalisation, poor countries are in a position to adopt diversification in various production sectors that mostly rely on agriculture or natural resources. However, diversification tends to reduce macroeconomic volatility ultimately. Countries with such economies tend to be exposed to industry specific shocks due to specialisation gained in the advanced stages of development (Mishkin 2001).
Based on comparative considerations, trade and financial integration can allow enhanced specialisation, thus leading to the problem stated above. The concept of macroeconomic volatility makes such a strong prediction on the relationship between volatility of consumption and financial integration. According to the consumers theory, both consumers and the entire economy are risk averse (Dick 2009, 150).
However, the theory recommends that consumers should utilise financial markets in insurance against risks related to incomes to sooth the effects of fluctuations in the growth of incomes. This aspect is vital because ultimately, the rate of consumption is highly dependent on the growth rate of incomes. There exist various benefits in relation to sharing risks on an international platform (Goonatilake & Herath 2007).
For instance, some macroeconomics policies are meant to stabilise or reduce volatility arising from consumption. In addition, they can have significant benefits to the economy, however minimal they could be. Higher volatility depicted by developing countries as opposed to developed ones indicates a potentiality to reap more benefits from international arrangements concerning sharing risks (Stiglitz & Uy 1996). Financial reforms concerning capital play a crucial role in curbing financial crises.
However, premature financial liberalisation can cause various financial crises especially among emerging economies and young markets. While these crises attract significant attention from researchers, there is little literature to support their findings. Both output and consumption volatility have been on the downwards trend recently among developing economies and emerging markets (Toporowski 2010).
Impacts on consumption
In relation to consumption, there exist predictions that financial liberalisation can lead to transnational movement of macroeconomics aggregates. However, the nature of shocks and specialisation determine the effect of financial integration among countries. Theoretically, the integration of a countrys financial system should lead to stronger cross movement of consumption patterns and growth among countries.
However, this element should not denote a correlation between incomes and output (Lewis & Misen 2000). Premature adoption of financial liberalisation can attract various reactions, which depend on whether a country is economically stable or not in terms of capital endowment.
However, countries should be careful since some impacts of financial liberalisation are transitory for they are not flexible, hence not subject to change. Increased accumulation of capital due to financial liberalisation leads to an increment in the rate of consumption at all seasons, which leads to a rise in wages leading to a decrease in the rate of returns on savings. However, the first generation after pioneers do not benefit from high wages, while at the same time experience the bad effects due to a decline in the rate of savings (Fry 1995).
Moreover, the effect is accompanied by an increment in the rate of consumption that can hardly be eliminated. During the first period after implementation of liberalisation, consumption keeps on the rise unless it is curbed through an increment in wage savings. If no measures are put in place to curb this menace, consumption will always remain higher than the period before financial liberalisation.
This point helps to denote a key point as stipulated by the conventional view of implementing financial liberalisation measures. A country can take advantage of development opportunities arising from financial liberalisation. However, this move calls for the presence of efficient and suitable infrastructure to enable right decisions towards remaining steady or moving towards financial liberalisation.
Effects on foreign and domestic debts
Premature financial liberalisation can lead to additional debts, hence instability of the economy. This scenario arises when enforcement of foreign and domestic debts occur concurrently, which means that enforcement of domestic debts leads to enforcement of the foreign ones. This aspect arises from the inability to discriminate; therefore, countries end up exchanging benefits accrued to enforcing domestic debts against the costs associated with acquiring and enforcing foreign debts (Itoh & Lapavitsas 1999).
In case entrepreneurs default on payment, the effect is on domestic debt, while its impact on consumption depends on the interrelation between foreign and domestic bonds in the entrepreneurs portfolios. Ultimately, this scenario leads to inequalities in the treatment of the two types of debts in favour of foreign debts (Mishkin 2001).
Conclusion
Impacts of financial liberalisation have remained controversial across the world for some of the issues have attracted considerable attention from many researchers and scholars. This paper has attempted to evaluate the impact of premature financial liberalisation on microeconomics and financial stability of any given economy and based on the discussion held above, premature liberalisation depicts both positive and negative impacts in both developed and developing or emerging economies.
Reference List
Bodie, Z, Kane, A & Marcus, A 2005, Essentials of Investments, 6th edn, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Corrado, C & Jordan, Fundamentals of Investments-Valuation and Management, 3rd edn, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Dick, N 2009, Global Financial Crisis: Foreign and Trade Policy Effects, Diane Publishing, New York.
Fry, M 1995, Money, Interest and Banking in Economic Development, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore.
Goonatilake, R & Herath, S 2007, The volatility of the stock Market and News, International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, vol.11, pp.53-64.
Helleiner, E &Pagliari, S 2010, Global Finance in Crisis: The Politics of International Regulatory Change, Taylor & Francis, New York.
Itoh, M & Lapavitsas, C 1999, Political Economy of Money and Finance, Macmillan, London.
Lewis, M & Misen, P 2000, Monetary Economics, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Mishkin, F 2001, The Economics of Money, Banking, and Financial Markets, 6th edn, Addison Wesley, Boston.
Shelagh, H 2005, Modern Banking, Wiley, Chichester.
Stiglitz, J & Uy, M 1996, Financial Markets, Public Policy and the East Asian Miracle. Web.
Toporowski, J 2005, Theories of Financial Disturbance, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Toporowski, J 2010, Why the World Economy Needs a Financial Crash and Other Critical Essays on Finance and Financial Economics, Anthem Press, New York.
The liberal view on sexual behavior comes closest to my own perspective. I consider myself a liberal, hence the belief that all people should be treated with respect, with equality being the guiding principle. Different arguments support my view of this issue. First, I opine that people have the freedom of choice to become what they want in life, and if a person decides to associate with a certain sexual orientation, they should not be judged based on their choices. In addition, looking at the bigger picture, we are all human beings, thus people should be treated as such, and their human rights upheld anywhere.
Therefore, with the issue of human rights coming into play, people should be allowed to make decisions concerning their sexuality without interference by external forces. This position does not need scientific validation, as it is based on the premise that all human beings are created equal, and thus everyone has the right to choose their sexual orientation.
Second, I believe that sexual behavior is not entirely a question of an individuals choice. Gender is a complex issue and a factor of the composite interrelationship among the internal sense of female or male, biological sex, and the outward presentation of ones perception concerning this behavior and presentation. Therefore, gender could be viewed as a biological and social construct. Using twin studies, Sanders et al. (2015) found that some genes influence the development of male sexual orientation. Therefore, based on these findings, I maintain that people should not be judged for becoming sexually oriented in a certain way, yet they have no control such behaviors.
In addition, I think that sexual behavior is a subject to social conditioning, whereby it is nurtured with time. The assumption that human beings choose their sexual behavior is hinged on the claim that the available research does not sufficiently support the biological argument that genes contribute to sexual orientation. However, the lack of sufficient scientific knowledge should not be used as a valid claim against the view that people have no control over their sexual behaviors.
A review of the available biological, psychological, and social sciences literature on the issue of sexual behavior found that the majority of non-heterosexuals (about two to three times) are likely to have been abused sexually as children (Mayer & McHugh, 2016). In the light of these findings and the view that enough scientific research has not been conducted on the issue of sexual behavior, I believe people should be allowed to sexually orient as they desire, hence the liberal view of sexual behavior.
References
Mayer, L. S., & McHugh, P. R. (2016). Sexuality and gender: Findings from the biological, psychological, and social sciences. The New Atlantis, 50, 1-143.
Sanders, A. R., Martin, E. R., Beecham, G. W., Guo, S., Dawood, K., Rieger, G.,& & Duan, J. (2015). Genome-wide scan demonstrates significant linkage for male sexual orientation. Psychological Medicine, 45(7), 1379-1388.