The Emergence of the Global Economic and Financial System- After the war, an economic and financial systems became rules-based and market-oriented. 3. The re-emergence of State-Owned and State-Supported Enterprises- after the war, states played a role in economic systems in most parts of the world. There was a period of massive privatization where the role of the state was not as strong, but now the role of states are starting to rise again. States are moving towards a state-owned economic system but the government has to be careful to remain “competitive neutrality”.
Overall, I do not think that Washington and Monroe’s doctrine is usable today. The possibility or remaining isolationists was lost when America became a superpower. When that happened, other nations began to look up to America for assistance. Plus, the US want to be involved to help so that if they need help, other nations would be willing to help in return. The Monroe Doctrine states that the continents of North and South America should be able to develop without interference from the Europe.
New companies are unable to enter an industry with a monopoly due to barriers to entry which inhibits new firms from entering. These barriers to entry include legal issues such as a patent, strategic access to resources as well as economies of scale. A monopoly that arises from economies of scale is considered to be a natural monopoly because it means its economically more sensible to have only one firm in the industry due to high costs associated with it. Perfect Competition industries are ones in which there are many sellers, it’s homogeneous, and perfect information is provided meaning there are no barriers to entry. Because there are no barriers to entry, anyone can enter the industry without having to risk a large amount.
By not complying with the duty of serving the owners’ interest a manager would allocate resources artificially and arbitrarily. This spending would be unjust and probably non-optimal, because it is not democratically authorized. Assigning duties other than serving the owners to a non-democratically selected manager would result in abandoning parts of freedom and democratic achievements. Milton Friedman’s shareholder theory of management basically says that the purpose of a business is to make money for the owner or the stockholders of the business. Friedman says that there is only one social responsibility for the business: to use its resources in order to increase its profits as long as the business stats within the rules that are assigned.
Waltz argues in favor of this reinterpretation in order to make political realism a more accurate theory of international politics. He suggests a systemic approach: the international structure acts as a restriction on state behavior, so that only states whose outcomes fall within an expected range survive. This system is comparable to a microeconomic model in which firms accept both their prices and quantity based on the market. Neorealists endeavor to simplify explanations of behavior with a view to explaining and predicting general tendencies better. They stress the structure of the international system in their analyses as a clarifying feature over states, which are emphasized by earlier realists, and over the natural characteristics of human beings.
Charles Bietz challenged this belief in his work”Political Theory and International Relations” by arguing that there exists an international society even in the absence of a comprehensive political constitution to regulate it (Young 162). Bietz goes on to argue that ongoing economic processes, investment and trade connect people in all regions of the world and these relationships are often unequal in power and resources. Onora O’Neill argues differently but to a similar conclusion that the scope of an agent’s moral obligation extends to all those whom the agent assumes in conducting their activity. We have made practical moral commitments to them by virtue of our actions (Young 163). Iris Young’s essay on Global Justice she interprets both Bietz and O’Neill and expands on their views.
The world being flat is symbolically described in Friedman’s novel for his theory of imminent total globalization. Ghemawat otherwise disagrees, he feels that national borders nevertheless have a bearing on the global economy. Through Pankaj’s research on investment, phone calls, tourism, and immigration he is able to theorize that the actual extent of globalization is only at about 10%. That figure is strikingly below the visualization Friedman described in his novel. While Friedman believes globalization has changed core economic concepts, Ghemawat’s research indicated four areas of differences “…those related to cultural (language, customs, religion, ethnicities, etc.
(Gordon, 2006) One must avoid viewing this question bluntly as we must delve into all the elements involved. What the sanctions achieve depend on the objectives and their resultant success. Henceforth, I will be discussing what economic sanctions achieve, politically, socially, economically and independently. Economic sanctions involve ‘restrictions upon international trade and finance that one country imposes on another for political reasons.’(Investorwords, no date) There are many types of economic sanction used, most notably comprehensive and targeted smart sanctions. The success of the sanctions depends on a number of factors.
That theory justifies that the State government can do whatever is appropriate to assist the “infant” industry, this implies that he can subsidies the industry to reduce the costs or use barriers to protect it. This argument has few weaknesses. First, among all government assistances, the best form of assistance is not a tariff or other barrier to imports. Rather, a subsidy to initial production or to cost reductions sources is over time usually the best policy. Second, most of the time, for a promising industry, there is no need for any government assistance to the initial firms.
Why do different countries adopt different attitudes towards international trade? Put simply, different countries adopt different attitudes towards international trade because, depending on their situation, countries can gain and loose from international trade. Most commonly a country’s attitude towards international trade is dictated by its strength or weaknesses in certain markets which will determine whether international trade will make that country richer or poorer in those markets. Historically countries attitudes towards international trade have also been affected by greater political factors beyond that of market economics usually taking the form of events such as war and ideological shifts and radicalisations. The more common and economically orientated explanation for country’s differing attitudes towards international trade is that certain countries gain or loose from trade in certain international markets.