Nobody knows why many policymakers and practitioners are so much involved in the erudite study of international dealings. Majority of policymakers dismiss academic theorists of course terming their own reasons. Nevertheless, largely, these policymakers agree that there is an inexorable connection the world of theory and that of policy. Theories are imperative to the blizzard of information that affects people’s lives. Although some theories may appear futile in policymaking, some of them are fundamental to the policymaking process.
To some extent, the two are interdependent in that good policies emanate form theoretical principles, while good theories come after understanding the real world. However, theories do not incarcerate the policymaking process. Instead, they offer an array of ideas on how to develop foreign policies from the theoretical orthodoxies.
Starting from the end of the Second World War, many policymakers have continued to fault international relations as a subject. This prompted scholars to develop several theories, which have since met criticisms between analysts and policymakers. The two main contentious theories are realism and liberalism (Stephen, 1998, p.1).
Realism
During the Cold War, realism was the dominant theory in explaining international affairs. Although elucidatory on the ways of eliminating conflict and war, many policymakers found it faulty in its approaches towards imperialism, international cooperation and competition.
Many policymakers believe that this theory ignored human nature and instead focuses on the international structure alone. Thus, employing this theory into practice means that the world will become unsafe through increased wars because every great power is seeking to control other nations (Wally, 1995. pp.13-21).
This theory makes assumptions that nations resemble each other even when there are rich countries and poor countries. Therefore, nations must look for modalities of amassing resources in order to determine the level of their powers. This perception can lead to security dilemma hence making many policymakers to pin down some of the theories of international relations. This theory makes nations appear individualistic, as the main aim is to protect self-interests for survival (Forde, 1995, pp. 141-160).
Liberalism
Liberalism is another theory of international relations that has met criticism from many policymakers. Just like realism, the theory assumes that all nations are equal economically and military. Many policymakers argue that economic interdependence of states will babysit other nations from developing their own economy using the available resources. Additionally, the theory principally selects few transnational actors for example, multinational corporations from rich countries to control the world’s economy.
This is disadvantageous to other smaller corporations especially in underdeveloped countries as they will not grow faster to reach the international standards. Through this theory, there is increased poverty around the world. Although this theory asserts that nations should strive to achieve economic dependence, it presents egoistic ideas under anarchical conditions.
The other problem with this theory as depicted out by many policymakers is that it assumes all people irrespective of their background are hungry for political, economic and military supremacy. From this assumption, it is hard to establish a policy that will cater for the needs of the whole people (Copeland, 1996, pp. 5-12).
Conclusion
The main reason why many theories of international relations are of no use to policymakers is that these theories are mainly assumptions and take all human beings and nations are unitary. In reality, this is not the case. Each region or country in the world has its own resources. These resources are the one that sets the foundation of building the economy of the citizenry.
Many of these theories assert that every human being should strive egoistically to achieve personal success. Whenever this fails to happen, the have-nots will turn to those who have and finally conflict and war ensues. Nevertheless, we cannot discard these theories as they give us the glimpse of our future. In the same case, the practical world of policymaking should dictate human beings to develop theories consistent with real life.
References
Copeland, D., 1996. Economic Interdependence and War: A Theory of Trade Expectations. International Security, 20(4), 5-12.
Forde, S., 1995. International Realism and the Science of Politics: Thucydides, Machiavelli and Neorealism. International Studies Quarterly, 39(2), 141-160.
Stephen, M., 1998. International relations: One world, many theories. Web.
Neo-liberalism refers to a set of economic policies that have become common worldwide, for the last two and half decades. The trend of neo-liberalism has been imposed by various organizations, particularly by some of the powerful financial institutions in the world, such as the IMF and the World Bank (Amin 53).
Neo-liberal economic and development policies have been implemented in many regions of the world, specifically for poverty reduction and development purposes. In that case, the initial agenda behind these policies was tailored mostly with regard to the needs of international capital and this, it was argued, was intended to benefit all segments of the society including the less-fortunate.
In essence, the final outcomes realized from various mechanisms of the framework would see the poor being the major beneficiaries of the approach. However, the outcomes have failed to meet the intended expectations, as it is evident from various regions where neo-liberal approaches have been applied with the aim of reducing poverty and improving the living standards of people. This report examines some of the main impacts of neo-liberal development approach on poor countries.
Neo-liberalism draws mixed reactions from different people. While it is thought to facilitate developments in various parts of the world, the main beneficiaries of the trend are a minority of the global population. More obviously, while some people tend to view it as a driving force for economical change in the society, others would rather not appreciate it, owing to the many nightmares associated with the policies.
In the U.S. for instance, neo-liberalism is seen as a major contributor in the destruction of welfare programs, among other social problems. With the advance of high levels of unemployment and poverty in most developing nations, it is obviously apparent that neo-liberal policies have failed to deliver to the global society.
In fact, very little economic success has been realized through its seemingly promising development proposals. Unlike the best intentions behind the plan in connection with poverty, the approach has paved way for economic failures rather than success, in many developing countries (Haslam, Schafer and Beaudet 17).
Neo-liberal policies have offered neither advancements nor stabilization to the economy of poor states. Over the years, the high volume capital flow usually enforced by the stability policies has continued to propel frequent economical crises thus exposing developing countries to new threats and risks.
Another notable impact of this approach to poor countries is that it has succeeded in eliminating barriers in developing countries, while maintaining these barriers in the developed states through the liberalization of international trade (Meier and Stiglitz 35).
Another certain impact of these policies is evident in the fact that, they are operated at the expense of the poor countries while benefiting the developing countries. This explains the presumption of majority of people in the global society that the trend has only succeeded in widening the gap between the rich and the poor in the society. This contradicts the primary goal of the approach which is to reduce poverty in developing countries.
There is strong evidence from literature on the way neo-liberal development policies have continued to inflict negative impacts to poor countries as a result of economic inequality. For instance, with the financial reforms and foreign trade, poor countries have never been lucky to escape the wrath of negative productivity in all segments of the economy.
Some of the main issues here would include deterioration of national industries, lack of employment opportunities, loss of workers’ rights and labor market destabilization. All these outcomes have negatively influenced the economy of developing countries, thus contributing to high costs of living.
Difficulty access of basic services and increasing commodity prices are common in many regions where neo-liberal approach has been implemented. In this regard, the policies have actually succeeded in increasing poverty levels in some regions while limiting development efforts in others.
There has been an increase in globalization in the modern era, where implementation of neo-liberal policies and structures has been a dominant effort in addressing the economical issues affecting the global populations nowadays (Haque 205). The application of alternative production factors, as castigated by neo-liberal policies has increased exponentially in the last few decades and even though this has had its own benefits to the overall growth of productivity, it has brought along serious implications to the global labor market.
The increase in diverse technological production factors and facilities has led to decreased employment and reduced employee income and benefits.
And it is for these reasons why the stabilizing policies of neo-liberal approach have failed to maintain stability of economies in poor countries. Moreover, the work-force has failed to flow from minimal productivity to increased productivity as it had earlier on been anticipated by the policy makers behind the approach. This however has contributed to high levels of unemployment in poor countries.
Neo-liberal development policies have also had great impact to the agricultural sectors of poor and developing countries. One significant effect of these policies in relevance to agriculture can be observed in the WTO agreements that do accompany these policies. Most of these agreements are targeted on liberalization of foreign trade in agricultural products and this has facilitated the drop of tariffs in the sector (Murat 97).
More importantly, there have also been modifications in systems supporting agriculture in poor countries, courtesy of the trade liberalization measures. These measures have continued to spell competitive agricultural strategies between developed and developing countries.
This way, neo-liberal development policies may have contributed to growth in agricultural productivity, but they have failed to offer employment opportunities in many poor countries thus contributing to high population of the unemployed, as poor peasants migrate to urban centers in search of greener pastures.
In conclusion, neo-liberal policies are yet to achieve their goals as far as the issue of eradicating poverty in poor countries is concerned. Over the years, the approach has achieved very little success in addressing the issue of poverty currently affecting many developing countries.
Haslam Paul, Schafer Jessica and Beaudet Pierre. Introduction to International Development, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Print.
Haque, Shamsul. “The fate of sustainable development under neo-liberal regimes in developing countries.” International Political Science Review 20. 2 (1999): 197 – 218. Print.
Meier, Gerald and Stiglitz Joseph. Frontiers of Development Economics: The Future in Perspective, United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis, 2002. Print.
Murat, Ozturk. “Neo-liberalism and Poverty in Turkey.” International Journal of Technology and Development Studies 1. 1 (2011): 88-121. Print.
Classical Liberalism developed from ideas and events in the late Medieval and Renaissance periods, and generated dramatic results during the Industrial Revolution, but its increasingly visible weaknesses generated many critiques that coalesced into Modern Liberalism from the 1800s onwards. Modern Liberalism thus developed as a reaction to the ideas of Classical Liberalism, although it also built on many discussions that were part of Classical Liberalism’s genesis.
The origins of Modern Liberalism range from the anti-industrialism of the Luddites, to the Utopian visions of the early Socialists, to the readiness for violent revolutionary action of committed Communists. In all instances, these ideas were intended to mitigate the ill effects of Classical Liberalism, especially in Great Britain.
As these negative impacts became more clearly visible, and their costs rose, there was more room for a critique of the deficiencies of what modern observers would now term laissez-faire capitalism. The ideas of Modern Liberalism have had widespread reverberations down to the present, although there is still active debate about their impact and validity.
Both Classical Liberalism and Modern Liberalism found fertile ground in England, her colonies, and Commonwealth for many reasons. The country had a history of citizen activism, notably the Magna Charta (MonarchUK, 2011).
The nation’s island status forced it to seek offshore fortunes, creating thereby a category of staggering wealthy folk with no hereditary, feudal tradition. The colonies opened windows on flourishing egalitarian aboriginal societies without Greco-Roman heritage. Additionally, scientific innovations drastically changed the way goods were manufactured (Raico, 1992).
The nation, thanks to Henry VIII, was also conveniently detached from Rome’s authority (Hunt, 2003, p. 32). England thus became a pocket-sized generator of individualistic and somewhat democratic ideas and practices (although egalitarianism took longer).
The ideas of Classical Liberalism arose logically from the discoveries and circumstances that existed before. Between the fall of Rome in the 5th century, and the Renaissance, the grip of the Church, the monarchy, and the monarchy’s deputies, the nobility, was largely unshaken. Kings , in an effort to regain re-establish Rome’s regional peace and stability, claimed rule by divine right, (in a supposed direct line of authorization from the Christian disciple, Peter, who was the first Bishop of Rome) (Raico, 1992) .
As such, the monarch could endow a favored subject with both land and the residents thereon. Such serfs, prohibited from moving, occupied a position equivalent to a cow. Their noble master appropriated a portion of their produce, and could sell or trade their labor with neighbors, or use them for halberd fodder in frequent conflicts (Hunt, 2003, p. 5).
The Church, the other great power (Hunt, 2003, p. 7), owned enormous properties with serfs as well (Hunt, 2003, p. 6). This situation of feudal power persisted with few interruptions for centuries. The Church, it must be noted, was the primary safety net for the poor or marginalized until the Elizabethan era in many areas (Hunt, 2003, p. 33).
However, many circumstances upset this equilibrium. The Crusades exposed great numbers of people to at least one different, vibrant, self-assured religion, rising in influence – namely, Islam.
Given that the Crusades took them into North Africa, it also seems reasonable to infer that these Christian knights experienced indigenous religions as well. This increased contact opened up new vistas for trade (such as those pursued by Marco Polo) and brought home new wealth, and new styles in architecture, music, and dress, at the very least (Hunt, 2003, p. 17).
This contact also re-introduced Europeans to ideas in medicine, natural science and other useful topics from ancient pagan texts preserved in Islamic libraries. The human-centered, individualistic, rational perspective of these texts promoted Renaissance ferment (Corrigan, 2011) (Perspectives on Ideology, p. 106). They may have also contributed to the growing critique of the Church’s abuses, culminating in the Reformation (Hunt, 2003, p. 36).
Thinkers such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, following the humanist, individualist trends in Renaissance philosophy, proposed mutually opposing views of humans quite distinct from the Church’s, implying novel roles for government (Perspectives on Ideology, p. 106).
Humans, in Locke’s view, were born good (although selfish (Hunt, 2003, p. 44)), an idea potentially conflicting with Catholicism’s concept of original sin. Locke believed that government’s role was protecting life, private property, and liberty, a concept enshrined in US founding documents.
Hobbes believed that humans’ intrinsic selfishness must be prevented from allowing mutual damage through a strong ruler’s control, which also conflicted with the previous (Christian) ideal of selflessness, a notion to which Margaret Lavinia Anderson alludes (Anderson). There was also a prevailing irritation with the Elizabethan Poor Laws, which many thoughtful people saw as encouraging idleness and blocking useful workers from moving to where there was demand (Anderson) (Hunt, 2003, p. 45).
As governmental power shifted, not without violence, from monarch to a Parliamentary body (Perspectives on Ideology, p. 108), thinkers examined how even a group (as opposed to a single tyrannical monarch) could act oppressively, and how to avert this.
The ideas of Charles de Montesquieu, namely that government’s power needed limitation through separation of its powers (executive, legislative, judicial), found a welcome in the fledgling US government (Raico, 1992). Jeremy Bentham articulated the view that government ought to be seeking the greatest good for the greatest number of people (Anderson).
John Stuart Mill, who was influenced by Bentham, asserted that the individual and the minority needed protection from the majority. He also asserted that government’s place was not to legislate behavior that caused no harm . While our understanding of ‘harm’ has evolved substantially, e.g., how industrial practices damage health, this idea still exerts powerful appeal.
Adam Smith suggested that a complete absence of regulations or controls on commerce and industry would allow individuals to operate maximally in their own best interests. Smith asserted that the ‘invisible hand’ would combine these individual efforts to ensure national success. This idea appealed to entrepreneurs, to whom the health of workers and the environment were irrelevant. Of course, as it transpired, the beneficiaries of such freedom of action were mill owners, not workers (Perspectives on Ideology, pp. 112-113).
Thus, Classical Liberalism’s early hold on England seemed to demonstrate successes (Raico, 1992). Energetic entrepreneurs amassed fortunes and increased the nation’s apparent wealth. However, horrors resulted from their unregulated activities.
Initially, machines replaced and uprooted many from traditional employment, crafts, residence, subsistence agriculture, and social connections. Child labor, unsafe conditions, and ludicrously long hours abounded, with no means of redress. Although free to leave an abusive situation, they were not necessarily free to find another equivalent job, or to undertake a lucrative craft. Thus, workers were essentially trapped in ghastly circumstances (Anderson).
These abuses drew attention from those directly affected, as well as thinkers and activists in various fields. The Luddite laborers took direct, violent action against the machines themselves. The Chartists attempted to broaden the voting franchise to allow the workers to have a say in regulating industry (Perspectives on Ideology, pp. 132-133) (Chartists.net, 2011).
Others did more than merely offer an articulate critique of the status quo under Classical Liberalism. David Ricardo mathematically quantified the Iron Law that wages fall to subsistence levels, if left without interference (Anderson). The Utopian Socialists proposed that citizen health and welfare was as important a function of government as the assurance of profit. The Fabians, one example of Utopian Socialists, proposed that the economy gradually move towards a more cooperative state.
Robert Owens, an innovative industrialist, attempted to implement his ideas tangibly (Perspectives on Ideology, pp. 134-135) . He tried to establish a community free of private property, free of religion, and free of sexual inequality (marriage), but, as noted by Margaret Lavinia Anderson, his impractical management was impractical forced him to sell out and get out. He did inspire an early union precursor (Anderson).
The Frenchman Charles Fourier proposed equally detailed, and dramatic reform ideas. He recommended establishing small communities of people representing all human personalities, and held together by his notion of ‘passionate attraction’ to the general welfare, living in rational structures called phalanstères. Fourier also wanted to create ways of working that did not enslave, brutalize, and alienate the worker.
This is the sort of appropriation of control represented by the enchanted broom The Sorcerer’s Apprentice portion of the Disney movie Fantasia, as noted by Margaret Lavinia Anderson (Anderson). He inspired people all over, such as Horace Greeley, the New York journalist, who attempted a Fourier utopian community. Some of Fourier’s adherents in Russia were sent to Siberia for their efforts.
Charles Dickens brilliantly satirized the moral bankruptcy of the Classical Liberal industrial system for a wide and popular audience. He lampooned industrialists’ abuse of workers (e.g., Hard Times), miserably inadequate charitable institutions (e.g., Oliver Twist), and public callousness (for example, A Christmas Carol). Given the power of his work to move modern audiences, it is easy to envision his influence on his contemporaries on the issues of industrialization and economic inequality.
There were also efforts by industrialists themselves, at various times and places, to compensate for capitalism’s shortcomings. Factory owners tried to provide homes, schools, recreation, and similar amenities to appease factory workers. Though apparently admirable, this did not prevent trade union activism and violence, and continued resistance to, and criticism of, classical liberalism.
There was also an Irish famine, and widespread population pressure in the early decades of the 1800s. This demographic explosion was initially supported by agriculture and manufacturing innovations. However, the dramatic starvation clearly revealed classic liberalism’s imperfections. Margaret Lavinia Anderson contends that this population and famine issue was an important backdrop and element in all the thinking, writing, and conflict of the period (Anderson).
There was another strain of thinking in the 1800s that sought to uproot the very foundations of economies. Marxism adopted the cloak of science for his brand of socialism.
He was affected in the development of his own ideas by Hegel’s vision of history as a logical, intelligible process, termed the dialectic. Marx’s own perspective, which he called historical materialism, predicted that workers must, eventually, rise up when they accumulate enough numbers and consciousness, as capitalism inevitability broke down.
They must inevitably transform society by revolution, appropriating both ownership of the means of production, and control of government, from the bourgeoisie (Anderson). In his model of communism, the community owned everything of value. This ideology had its own complex narrative, affecting widely varying nations all across the world to this day.
The Great Depression was a dramatic revelation of capitalism’s fallibility (Perspectives on Ideology, p. 145). In the Great Depression, the economist John Maynard Keynes proposed to moderate the inevitable cycles of capitalism by proactive government spending or savings.
Counter-cyclical spending, would, Keynes believed, soften the painful extremes of boom and bust (Perspectives on Ideology, pp. 146-149). This idea is being discussed in detail, at this very moment in the USA.
The actual result, for a number of nations, of the application of Modern Liberalism, has been the creation of the welfare state (Perspectives on Ideology, p. 149). The government fills in when employers do not pay enough to support the necessities of life, or when employment is unavailable.
This has the potential for some of the same negative effects as the Poor Laws that Ricardo noted earlier on. It is accused by modern conservatives – nearly daily, in some media outlets – of creating a class forever trapped in joblessness or under-employment.
Modern Liberalism developed out of the observations and objections made over decades regarding the weaknesses of Classical Liberalism, which, itself, developed as a response to absolute and capricious monarchical greed. It has become embedded in at least one party’s platform in most western nations.
Modern Liberalism affects us even today in Canada, and has shaped the development of many aspects of our society, with our health system as just as one example.
Bibliography
Anderson, M. L. (n.d.). Capitalism and its Critics. Web.
Classical Liberalism is a set of ideas about the way people should live together, and the role of government, which were articulated from the 17th century through the 19th century.
These concepts have their roots in earlier centuries and still reverberate today. Affecting everything from revolution to evolution, and wage controls to welfare, classical liberalism, and its critique, has helped to shape society in the UK, the Commonwealth countries, and the USA.
Classical liberalism differed from previous views of the world in that it de-emphasized the unquestioned absolute control of human affairs by the Catholic Church, and/or the monarchy with supposed divine right, and/or aristocratic oligarchy.
The nature of humans was described, as E.K. Hunt asserts, as “egoistic, coldly calculating, essentially inert and atomistic” (wikipedia, 2011) quoting E.K. Hunt (Hunt, 2003, p. 44) Instead, thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Baron Charles de Montesquieu, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, and David Ricardo all assented to the necessity for the rule of law. This substitution of a legal code or system for the uncontrolled power of the monarch was expected to protect the individual’s rights, which themselves were a novel idea.
These philosophers also believed that the right to own, profit from, and dispose of private property rather than living as serfs, tied to the land without owning it, would contribute to the health and wealth of the nation. Further, these rights, they began to assert, needed to be exercised in a context of economic freedoms, such as freedom to trade, and to compete.
The origins of these ideas can be discerned in developments in Europe starting perhaps as early as the Crusades. These adventures exposed the Europeans to other religions, and other ways of living, as well as ancient Greek and Roman philosophical and scientific texts and knowledge that had survived in Arab libraries and traditions (p. 69) (e.g. De Rerum Natura, by Lucretius, lost, and re-discovered by a 15th century Florentine (National Public Radio, 2011)).
The human-centered, rational focus of the Renaissance can be said to have benefitted from such rediscoveries of lost knowledge (p. 68). Factors such as the Black Death, and trends away from an exclusive dependence on agriculture all contributed to increasing the value of serfs’ labor and thereby increasing their options. This contributed to the detaching of serfs from the land and creating an urban merchant society (Hunt, 2003, p. 22).
The Industrial Revolution made a definite break with agriculture, and brought with it many new problems as well as great wealth for some. This led thinkers to reconsider the previously accepted relationship between government and the governed, workers and the products of their work, and many other important issues.
John Locke proposed that humans enter the world as blank slates without evil, which was not necessarily in line with the Catholic Church’s view, and that our impulses tend to be positive towards each other. In his view, as reasonable entities of basic goodness, humans deserve basic rights to live, to do what they wish, and to own property (p. 109). Government, in a social contract with the governed, should be responsible for ensuring that these rights are protected, in Locke’s view.
This notion of the ‘social contract’ was deeply felt in the British colonies and contributed to the American Revolutionary war for independence. Thomas Hobbes, on the other hand, held a rather more negative view of human nature, and this is reflected in a concomitant difference in the role he assigned to government.
He felt that humans’ overwhelming self-interest required powerful supervision to avoid people preying on each other and making each other’s lives “nasty, brutish, and short” (p. 108). Charles de Montesquieu proposed that governments, chosen by their citizens, should have their power constrained by having their functions separated into three elements.
He suggested that they be as follows: the legislative to create laws, the executive to implement them, and the judicial to punish when laws are broken. This model has been used by many modern democratic governments. It was applied very explicitly by the American colonies after their bid for independence (p. 110).
John Stuart Mill was a proponent of the protection of individual rights within a functioning democracy. He believed that where the majority could vote to affect society, the minority could be thereby tyrannized. To avoid this, he suggested that unless behavior (and speech) harmed others, it be allowed, even if it were self-destructive (p. ibid).
This idea is particularly significant today, when modern democracies face the bill for medical costs for people’s self-harm (e.g., smoking-related lung diseases, drinking-related liver damage, and sexually transmitted diseases, all of which arise from personal behavioral choices).
Adam Smith, following the laissez-faire ideas of the French physiocrats, believed that individuals operating in unconstrained fashion in their own best interests would, without even being aware of it, contribute to the nation’s economic betterment (p. 112).
He opposed the control of trade by the Crown for the purposes of collecting money for the treasury, and limitations on trade with other nations. He believed that such controls and fees on commerce interfered with free trade and blocked the beneficial action of the “invisible hand” in increasing overall wealth (p. 79). David Ricardo helped to clarify the value of labor, and the relationship of labor supply, demand, and wages (p. 103).
These ideas, all of which were passionately argued for several centuries, together lead to a model of economic behavior that is sometimes termed capitalism. Countries led by governments that are chosen with the consent of the governed, encouraging through their inaction the active trade, exchange, and commerce between individuals, entities and nations, were believed to permit the accumulation of wealth and the increase of production.
This model allowed for the rise and spread of industrialization, and the amassing of great fortunes, but also permitted hideous abuses of labor. The discontent on the part of thoughtful people with such deficiencies in the system (exemplified in the powerful satirical commentary by the writer and journalist Charles Dickens) led to the development of Modern Liberalism (p. 103). This movement also has a long-lived legacy.
Modern Liberalism developed as an attempt to respond constructively to the truly horrible side effects of classical liberalism. To the industrialists of the time, there seemed to be no profit advantage to be gained by treating laborers well. Unfortunately, there were no laws requiring any better treatment. Both from laborers in industry themselves, and from thinkers who were observing industry and society, there were powerful reactions.
Ranging from the direct destructive action of the Luddites, to the more peaceful efforts of the Chartists, to the Utopian philosophizing of George Bernard Shaw and the Fabian Society, and moving on to the near-religious convictions of committed Marxists, these were all attempts to redress and prevent perceived wrongs inflicted on workers. They all have had a definite and continuing impact on the way modern democracies operate by contributing to the development of Modern Liberalism.
An early and tangible objection to the treatment of laborers in the time of Classical Liberalism came from the laborers themselves. When machines began replacing skilled artisans with minimally trained machine operators, especially in the textile industry, workers saw a threat to their livelihoods.
They attempted to destroy the machines themselves, in various places, starting with the actions of a laborer named Ludd. The workers who followed this example were called Luddites. So dramatic was this protest actions, that this name was later applied to anybody who objected to all sorts of innovations and discoveries.
The mill owners successfully called on the government to suppress these protests with force, on the grounds that they were being prevented from doing business freely (pp. 131-132). Coming somewhat later, and seeking a solution to the problems of society attributed to classical liberalism, the Chartists focused on voting and representation.
These activists were named for the People’s Charter (there were three of these, signed by many thousands) that outlined their proposals. They pushed for universal adult male suffrage, equalizing the size of electoral districts, secret ballots, elimination of property qualifications for Parliamentary candidates, a concomitant institution of a salary for MPs, and regular yearly elections.
All these reforms except the annual Parliamentary elections were implemented. These changes would, the Chartists hoped, lead to a more democratic political process, and allow wider participation in governance. Names such as Feargus O’Connor, John Frost, William Lovett, Henry Vincent and Earnest Jones are associated with this comprehensive attempt to create a more equitable society (Chartists.net, 2011) (pp. 132-133).
The Utopian socialists took the notion of creating an ideal society further. Visionaries such the British industrialist Robert Owen, in Great Britain, and the American journalist Horace Greeley, supported improving the conditions under which people worked and lived, by means of education, labor, and health reforms (pp. 134-135).
These ideas were not extreme enough for other socialists, such as Karl Marx. These thinkers and activists believed that society must be changed from the ground up, literally.
They asserted that the whole concept of private ownership of anything that could be used to generate profit (e.g., land, mills, machinery; the means of production) led inevitably to the evil of exploitation of one class by another. They asserted that the government should impose economic equality and ensure a classless society (p. 136).
While the complexities of the internal conflicts between various flavors of socialism and communism are beyond the scope of this essay question, the principles that the communists and socialists debated and even died for, have had a definite effect on government policies and continue to do so today (pp. 136-139). The ideas of Marx and Engels thus contributed substantially to the formation of Modern Liberalism.
It was especially during the Great Depression that the deficiencies of laissez-faire capitalism, and even of the mitigating efforts of welfare capitalism, became apparent (p. 142). With people literally starving, many thoughtful people acknowledged the need to implement some sort of safety net. This was yet another step in the development of Modern Liberalism (p. 145). During the Depression, many reforms were implemented that redistributed resources to stimulate the economy, and protect families from tragedy.
Thinkers such as economist John Maynard Keynes asserted that the government needed to smooth out the fluctuations in the economy that were inevitable in a capitalist system where demand and supply rise and fall all the time (pp. 146-149). This fiscal approach has been implemented to some degree in the USA, and in fact, these ideas are the subject of intense public debate right now in the current economic crisis.
In day-to-day life, the best practical ideas arising from the principles of Modern Liberalism, such as Medicare, have been more or less successfully, implemented to ensure that people do not fall into the cracks through no fault of their own.
Such efforts to prevent illness or job loss from causing unnecessary death are the essence of Modern Liberalism as it is seen today, at its best. Society is viewed under Modern Liberalism as needing to be cajoled, nudged, bullied, disciplined, and supported in its efforts to avoid trampling or leaving behind its weaker members, and the government is allotted these tasks.
This paper covers two topics: the fall of the League of Nations and the subsequent creation of the United Nations, and the development of the European Union. The first section of the paper explores the two main body of theories in international relations namely the realist and liberal theories.
Realist theories advocate for the establishment of a world government while liberal theories claim that world peace can be secured through international institutions. The section also examines the factors that led to the fall of the League of Nations.
The second section of the paper explains two major theories of regionalism: neorealist and neoliberal theories. Neorealist theories hold that states pursue regional integration to reduce the lawlessness in international affairs.
In contrast, neoliberal theories argue that regional integration is meant to fulfil mutual inter-governmental goals. This section also explores motivations behind the establishment of the European Union.
The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Realism is a perspective on international relations that arose slowly out of the work of various theorists who took a distinctive attitude and perspective in the analysis of international affairs. The perspective puts emphasis on limitations on politics brought in by human nature and the lack of a world government. These two issues make international relations a subject concerning power and interests.
Although there is a divergence of views among realist theorists, all of them claim that egoistic desires and self-interest are the main forces behind international affairs.
They also claim that since international politics are a reflection of human nature, we should not have faith in international institutions and players (Jenkins 2003: 480). This perspective recommends the establishment of an international government to promote peace and equality in the world.
The Liberal Perspective of International Relations
The liberal perspective is based on the works of the Enlightement philosophers such as Immanuel Kant and John Locke. This perspective, unlike the realists’ view, takes an idealistic attitude towards human nature believing that humans have the capacity to develop morally (Jenkins 2003: 481).
The liberal perspective became popular after the end of the First World War. After this war, president Wilson of the US together with other like-minded idealists advocated for the establishment of the League of Nations in an effort to avert widespread political conflicts in the future.
The Fall of the League of Nations
The League of Nations was formed by American, Britain, and French politicians for preventing future war. This was after the First World War had come to an end. The League was established based on idealistic ideas and as a component of the Treaty of Versailles (Johnstone 2004: 820).
It was headquartered in Geneva Switzerland. The objective of the League was to secure world peace through a system known as collective security. The League was made up of eleven member states and its management was done through a council.
Decisions by the council were made unanimously. The eleven member states agreed to defend each other in case of attack by a non-member state.
Why the League Failed
There are several reasons that led to the failure of the League of Nations. First, the US which was expected to lead the league refused to join following an unfavorable decision regarding the same by the House of Senate (Burke & George 2012: 65).
Second, Britain and France which were the de facto leaders of the League did not always agree about how the league was to be operated. This undermined the management of the League greatly. Third, the idea of collective security became difficult to implement because of subjective interests of member countries.
Lastly, the Great depression of the 1930s also undermined the organization greatly as most of the member countries were economically devastated. The United Nations was formed in 1945 to take up the responsibilities of the League.
The Rise of the United Nations
Following the end of the Second World War, world leaders strived to establish international organizations that would secure global peace (Johnstone 2004: 815).
Previously, the League of Nations had been viewed as the answer to anarchy in international affairs but it had failed to prevent the Second World War (Ayson 2012: 203). As a result, World leaders saw the need to create a more powerful organization to succeed the League.
Neorealists Explanation of the Fall of the League of Nations
According to neorealists, the League of Natioons was inherently bound to fall because it did not address the critical element that caused anarchy in international matters. Neorealists believe that world conflict is caused by humans desire for power and that this nature must be addressed if global peace is to be achieved.
Addressing this sort of human nature would take a world government which would ensure equitable distribution of global resources (Herring & Rangwala 2005: 640).. In such a case, there would be no rationale for countries waging war against each other.
However, the League of Nations did not address this critical human nature and it was meant for advancing the interests of a few countries that it consisted of (Jenkins 2003: 480). Thus, according to realists, the organization was destined for failure from its inception.
Realists also believe that the eventual rise of the United Nations which encompasses more nations reflects the need to establish a world government. The success of the UN will, therefore, depend on whether or not it will be equitable to all world nations both member and non-member countries (Burke & George 2012: 68).
In practice, however, the organization’s leadership has tended to be in the hands of a few nations like the US and its decisions tend to favor the powerful nations while undermining the weaker ones. Realists, thus, believe that the UN may not live to achieve its mandate.
Neoliberalists Explanation of the Fall of the League of Nations
According to neoliberalists, the League of Nations failed o succeed because of poor management and the fact that the de facto leaders of the organization tended to advance their individual interests.
The advocates of this perspective believed that a more powerful and focused organization would be able to achieve the mission of bringing global peace (Burke & George 2012: 70). This was the mind-set that informed the formation of the United Nations in 1945. The aim of the organization is to stop conflict between countries and also to help those nations afflicted by civil wars to resolve their internal conflicts.
Collective Security
Collective security is a form of treaty whereby several nations come into an agreement not to wage war against each other and to defend one another in case any of these countries is invaded by another non-member country.
The principle underlying this form of coalition is that an attack against one of the member states is an invasion of all the member states (Johnstone 2004: 830). Classic examples of the execution of the collective security concept are the creation of the NATO and the Warsaw Agreement.
Balance of Power
The concept of balance of power became prominent during the Cold War which pitted the West against the East. The concept is based on the idea that one nation should not be left to dominate the world (Herring & Rangwala 2005: 645). However, after the end of the Cold War, the concept has not seen much application and the dominance of the US is unlikely to end any time soon.
References
Ayson R 2012, ‘The Changing Character of Warfare’ pp.199-217 in R. Devetak, A. Burke and J. George (eds) 2012, An Introduction to International Relations, 2nd edn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Herring E and Rangwala G 2005, ‘Iraq, Imperialism and Global Governance’, Third World Quarterly, 26(4-5), pp.667-638
Jenkins T 2003, ‘Exhuming a UN for ‘We the Peoples’, Peace Review 15(4), pp.479-482
Johnstone I 2004, ‘US-UN Relations After Iraq: The End of the World (Order) As We Know It?’, European Journal of International Law, 15(4), pp.813-838
My political ideology has always been liberalism. Liberalism, as Kelly would say, “… is an achievement that is not subject to the increasingly commonplace charges of philosophical confusion, reductionism individualism, political naiveté and irrelevance, or cultural imperialism…” (Kelly, 2011)
Political liberalism accommodates diverse opinions on how people should go on living their lives as opposed to other ideologies. It does not theorize and prescribe a whole dose of personal morality but only places limits on the diverse moral and political beliefs necessary in a contemporary democratic society.
These limits are derived from its central norm of the equal treatment and moral worth of all individuals. Moral claims by third persons will only be allowed if they are not incompatible with the fundamental principle of equal status of all. State power should never be utilized to get others to hold particular beliefs and not others.
Equal status of all and the strategy of privatization are the basic standpoints of this ideology. Individuals are required to recognize that contentious moral, religious and political views are private matters and should not be used to cause public political conflict. Moral scepticism is usually suppressed.
Liberalism is more of an individualistic doctrine in the sense that it is the moral worth of the human person which occupies its central position. This individualism has often been criticized as atomizing the society and thus breaking down the social ties.
The Modern US Liberalism
The contemporary US notion of liberalism is distorted from the classical meaning of the ideology (Kuehnelt-Leddihn, 1997). The Americans preach of liberties instead of equality of persons and human worth. They advocate for freedom of speech and expression, equality, democracy, and universality of human rights (Sevenier, 2004) as they claim they are more receptive to new ideas.
They are on a mission to spread liberal democracy around the globe. However, this objective has been undermined by the neoconservative conviction that pursuing democracy is universal as all individuals are seeking freedom. In light of this, the U.S. does not realize that it is not, in fact, promoting democracy as believed but rather is perpetrating a particular type of democracy whose basis of governance is liberal principles (Gray 2006).
Since liberal democracy is composed of a set of processes such as elections and legislative decisions, neoconservatives erroneously conclude that this amounts to a universal and rational system of governance which can be employed anywhere to produce human freedom.
However, processes like elections and legislatures do not form a part of universal goal towards freedom but rather amounts to a system of explicit traditions and rituals. Subsequently, liberal democracy is not a mere case of allowing a natural growth to take place without violence. Rather, it is the establishment of a particular form of political stratification and liberal procedures (Pan 2008).
The Changes Required In The U.S. Political Structure To Incorporate The Classical Liberalism Ideology
According to Carl Schmitt, the ultimate value in a society cannot be established through violence, neither can they be argued for logically. As such, the establishment of any form of political authority will definitely not be achieved by persuasion or arguments. Instead, they should be founded on an ethos of belief which according to Schmitt is the foundational basis of all political authority (Schmitt, 2004).
The U.S. should understand that establishing their concept of liberal democracy, they require a political structure which supports liberalism to represent that identity against alternative representations of identity that are mainly based on nationality, religious beliefs, and tribal affiliations.
References
Gray, S. (2006). Irregular Enemies and the Essence of Strategy: Can the American Way Of War Adapt? Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College.
Kelly (2011). Introduction: What is Liberalism? Web.
Kuehnelt-Leddihn, E. (1997). Liberalism in America, Journal Archive, Intercollegiate
Studies Institute. 3901 Centerville Rd. Willmington: Delaware.
Pan, D. (2008). Liberalism as a Political Ideological in U.S. Foreign Policy. Telos Archive: Telos Press Publishing,
Schmitt, C. (2004). Legality and Legitimacy, Trans. And Ed. Jeffrey Seitzer. Durham, NC: Duke UP.
Sevenier, G. (2004). American Cultural Imperialism: Gift or Threat. Web.
Over the years of human history, the world has witnessed many philosophies come and go. Most of them rise and fade away quickly, yet a few remain take hold, and affect the whole world forever. A good example is democracy and communism. In the U.S.A., democracy and capitalism are the overriding philosophies, yet the support for these systems has left people divided into three main categories: the liberals, the conservatives, and the radicals.
As a result of these three dominant divisions, it is evidenced that each group has a strong stand about government intervention and freedom. Minimal state liberals argue strongly that government intervention is a bad thing for the freedom of Americans and active state liberals argue strongly that government intervention is necessary to preserve the freedom of Americans.
This work contends for the view that even though government intervention may limit freedom of persons in a democracy, the system of democracy has in itself some vices that can never be left to fate. The vices of democracy are such as may lead to its own self destruction. Never once have the people been able to stand to correct the excesses of capitalism, only the government can do that (Dolbeare& Cummings, 2010).
Historically, government intervention in democracies has been in three main areas. These areas render themselves to the credence of requirement for allowing government the privilege of protecting the citizenry. The first reason is to augment power of capital as a whole within a society otherwise it becomes a reserve of the few chosen ones who exercise it on behalf of the lesser souls.
Second, at times the capitalistic gains may be skewed toward a particular segment of the society, only government intervention has the capacity to help this situation for the benefit of all parties. Last, government may intervene to put at bay the anti-social effects of capitalism.
These mentioned functions are an absolute necessity of the government in a capitalistic society that cares about the plight of its citizens as a whole. To turn against these responsibilities as suggested by minimal state liberals is therefore, myopic and naïve (Dolbeare, & Cummings, 2010).
The minimal liberals argue that the modern capitalistic government is too massive and extensive to be democratized. This may be true, but it is also true that if the government is in any way too massive then, this leaves the citizens in a precarious state. This then should then be a justifiable ground for government intervention.
The other argument offered by these minimal liberals is the issue of the mass of men in Europe or even in America who are not capable of self-governance. This view will be contrary to the very core values of the American constitution which holds that all humans are born equal. However, there is validity in their final argument that most democratic institutions may evolve as to be plutocratic.
This is definitely a positive challenge, but the countering of this problem does not lie in abandoning government interventions but rather in creating accountability on part of the government. At the same time, there must be strong will by the government to stay lean and active.
Recent events in history reveal to us the need for upholding of government especially in great economic and political crisis introduced by war. At such times, the only formidable force of lifting the people back to self-belief is a strong united government (Obama, 2013)
References
Dolbeare, K.M., & Cummings, M. S. (2010). American Political Thought (6th ed.). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
In general, liberals are credited with championing the cause of freedom based on the assumption that people are rational enough to have the freedom of shaping their beliefs and behavior with minimal interference. However, minimal-state liberals and active-state liberals display some significant similarities and differences, especially when moral psychology is considered.
Modern philosophers and psychologists have attempted to develop a clear line between the two forms of liberalism. In this paper, a moral-political psychology is discussed with respect to the perspectives of two modern philosophers- Jonathan Haidt and the Colbert Report on government raid on Rawsome foods in Venice, CA. The purpose of the discussion is to identify the differences and similarities between the two forms of liberalism based on a modern concept.
Haidt’s perception of liberalism
Considering Haidt’s talk in the video clip ‘TED Talk on the moral roots of liberal and conservative politics (Haidt, 2008)’, it is evident that the talk contains a number of key issues. First, Haidt has cited the renowned psychologist Steve Pinker in arguing that the blank slate presents one of the worst psychological ideas ever brought forward.
According to this perspective, it is quite clear that the human mind comes into limelight with a lot of organization prior to an experience. The claim holds true, despite the fact that such organization is largely plastic and prone to molding by the experience. This statement is quite agreeable in the modern philosophical context although Haidt does not provide a clear explanation of the term ‘experience’ (Haidt, 2008).
In his presentation, Haidt has mentioned that both minimal-state and active-state liberals significantly demonstrate high degree of differences in openness to experience. In fact, this is considered as one of the five main personality traits in psychology. According to Haidt (2010), personality traits are perceived as being one of the factors that is almost exclusively determined by the genetic factors.
In fact, Haidt argues from almost the same perspective as psychologists, McCrae and Costa. This argument is somewhat not agreeable in this context, as it appears to be an over-exaggeration of the role of genes in psychology. Although political traits run in families, such as in the Kennedy, Bush and Adams families, the claim is still arguable on the context of analyzing and comparing openness to the genetic inheritance of political ideologies in families. In this case, the minimal-state and active-state liberals tend to disagree on the role of genes in openness and inheritance of political traits.
Colbert’s perception of liberalism
In his report on the government raid on Rawsome Foods in Venice, CA, Stephen Colbert (2010), displays aspects that add to the differences and similarities in the perceptions of freedom between active-state and minimal state liberals. For instance, in the video showing his presentation of the report, Colbert is quoted saying that ‘liberty is under siege’ (Colbert, 2010).
Here, he argues that by raiding the premises, the local, state and federal authorities have interfered with the people’s rights and freedoms to choose the types of foods they take. Actually, this statement by Colbert displays a significant difference between the two types of liberals (Colbert, 2010).
For instance, while minimal-state liberals believe that people should have the total rights and freedoms to choose the items they use (such as foods and drinks), active-state liberals tend to believe in controlled freedom as long as the control aims at protecting the safety and well being of the public.
References
Colbert, S. (2010). Rawsome Foods Raid: Federal government declares war on raw milk by raiding Rawsome Foods in Venice, CA. Web. Colbert Nation, CA. Web.
Both welfare and neo-classical liberals share some similarities arising from the fact they were born from the same set of ideals, but they also have their differing viewpoints that to a large extent stem from their divergent reactions to the social effects of the Industrial Revolution.
In similarities, it is clear both welfare and neo-classical liberals believe in the value and promotion of individual liberty and a desire for a more open and tolerant society, not mentioning that they are guided by the twin elements of individual rational self interest and competition in their attempts to promote self interest (Dolbeare & Cummings, 2009).
Extant literature, however, demonstrates that the two political ideologies differ on very key issues that were pushed into the limelight by the social effects of the Industrial Revolution. Borrowing heavily on Darwin’s Theory of evolution, the neo-classical liberals, also referred to as minimal-state liberals, argue that people should not invest too much power in the government as such a move would obstruct the realization of individual liberty.
Indeed, the neo-classical liberals suggest that “…the state or government should be nothing more than a night watchman whose only legitimate business is to protect the person and property of individuals against force and fraud” (Dolbeare & Cummings, 2009 p. 71). Arising from this description, it is also clear that neo-classical liberals support minimal regulations in the pursuit of economic competition.
The welfare liberals (also called the active-state liberals), however, argue from the perspective that the government should play a bigger role in ensuring the liberty of people by rescuing them from social ills such as poverty, ignorance and illness.
Additionally, while neoclassical liberals reinforce the perspective that the strongest, smartest and most fit will survival in the competition at the expense of the poor and the weak, the welfare liberals are more concerned with ensuring that every person in the society enjoys an equal opportunity in life (Dolbeare & Cummings, 2009).
In the United States, it is clear that these differences led to the formation of the republican political ideology arising from neo-classical liberals set of ideals and democrat political dispensation arising from the welfare liberals set of ideals
It can be argued that the neo-classical liberals are more conservative than the welfare state liberals due to their quest to put in place a society that leans more toward the protection of property and its propensity to argue from the social Darwinism orientation that only the strongest and the hardest working will survive.
Neo-classical liberals come out strongly as more conservative than active-state liberals as they seem oriented to ‘conserve’ or ‘preserve’ the status quo by fighting for minimal government interference with private property.
In a sense, it appears correct to argue that neo-classical liberals seem to hold a much higher value on private property and material wealth than on guaranteeing that people are assisted to achieve their liberty and full potential by providing them with a totally new framework and political dispensation to deal with a multiplicity of social ills bedeviling society, including poverty, ignorance and illness (Dolbeare & Cummings, 2009).
Lastly, it is correct to argue that neo-classical and welfare liberals exercise ideological and political philosophies that are clearly different from classical conservatism.
While both neo-classical and welfare liberals believe in rational human behavior guided by the value and promotion of individual liberty, classical conservatives are of the opinion that political society develops over time out of custom and human society, and that people’s capacity to reason is severely limited.
Reference
Dolbeare, K.M., & Cummings, M.S. (2009). American political thought (6th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Liberal ideas date back to medieval times when people were overwhelmed by a variety of restraints. People longed for freedom or, at least, some amount of liberty. Therefore, the major postulate of liberals has always been quite the same. Liberals has always claimed that individual freedom is the basic right of all people.
Human society evolved and numerous socioeconomic factors affected development of liberal ideology and contributed to its spread. Notably, contemporary liberals have often been seen as a faction within a larger context of Liberalism due to peculiarities of their beliefs.
To What Extent Liberals Are the Same?
It is necessary to note that liberals remain faithful to the core values. Thus, they proclaim individual freedom to be the most important. For instance, Ball and Dagger (2002, p.47) note that contemporary liberals promote “individual liberty by trying to guarantee equality of opportunity within a tolerant society”. Liberals tend to proclaim the importance of equal rights for all citizens.
These ideas are rooted in the medieval times when people had no freedom at all and were overwhelmed by numerous conventions. Another core value of liberalism is free competition. They believe competition to be an inherent part of a liberal society.
They argue that competition is an important factor leading to progress (Ball & Dagger, 2002). Finally, liberals agree that people tend to pursue their own goals. However, only these major principles are shared by liberals.
To What Extent Are They Different?
In the twenty-first century, liberals share similar core values that were developed centuries ago. However, contemporary liberals do not agree with some of the means to reach the major goals. Thus, liberalism promotes emphasis on individual liberty (Ball & Dagger, 2002, p. 46). This does not only concern private lives and personal choices.
This extends to the development of the entire society. However, liberals of the twenty-first century believe that the state should guide people. Liberals of the nineteenth century claimed that competition was progress and any intervention was to be regarded as introduction of restraints (Ball & Dagger, 2002, p. 70).
However, the Great Depression, that became one of the major turmoil of the twentieth century (apart from the two world wars, of course), made people understand that unrestricted competition could lead to devastating results. People tended to seek for regulations and guidance form the state.
Admittedly, this distorted the idea of liberty and free individual choices. Nonetheless, liberals of the twentieth century (as well as liberals of the twenty-first century) claimed that this was not a restriction, but a guidance to ensure equal opportunities for all. Therefore, contemporary liberals choose free will and liberty which is guided and directed for the good of all.
Conclusion
To sum up, it is possible to state that contemporary liberals have remained faithful to the core postulates of the ideology. They still promote ideas of individual liberty and freedom. They also agree that competition may positively affect development of the society.
Nonetheless, they tend to proclaim the necessity of the state guidance and regulation as this can ensure equal opportunities for all people. In simple terms, it is possible to note that contemporary liberals have acquired a bit different views on the means to achieve individual freedom. This transformation of beliefs can be explained by certain changes in the western society which took place centuries and decades ago.
Reference List
Ball, T. & Dagger, R. (2002). Political ideologies and the democratic ideal. New York, NY: Longman.