Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism maintains that although the world is tough and dangerous, there are more negative effects of deploying a state's military might than positive ones. Neoliberalism holds that even if each state has distinct core objectives, international collaboration is in the best interests of all nations. A liberal point of view, in contrast to the realist view, which emphasizes military power, believes that social and financial powers play a significant part in the interaction between states and that military force is not the only form of authority.  These economic powers fall under the idea of international sanctions against a state that goes against the interest of the international community, that being a lasting peace.

Literature Review

Political ideologies in respect of governance are based on the role of the state regarding its relationship to the citizenry, and in this regard, the Neoliberal is no exception. But a precise demarcation can be observed in the way in which Neoliberalism and Socialism view the dominance of the central government over the citizenry of a particular state (Swarts 2013, p. 72). It is noteworthy that under the socialist ideology a strong central government plays a more central role in regulating the socio-economic sphere of the concerned nation.

Although there are observers of international relations, who have argued that governments do in fact have a choice of using either "power politics" or other means to gain their objectives. So some governments may be more prone to using military threats than others as a means of influencing the behavior of nations (Swarts 2013, p73). No government, unless it is completely independent, self-sufficient and isolated from the external environment, fails to seek to control the behavior of the nations surrounding it. To control other nations a state may make threats, though not necessarily of a military nature, they may offer rewards or commit various actions of punishment to induce behavior that falls in line with its own interests.

In almost all situations there is a psychological element within a power relationship. It serves as a transmission between the application of power and the resulting behaviour (Demmers, Fernández, & Hogenboom 2012, p 217). For example, a state may create prestige for itself to gain influence in the decision-making process of another state. Similarly, a state may assist another state so as to create a sense of obligation, which can then later be exploited. Disregarding how a power relationship is defined or what means are used in the application of power the constant of psychology remains a key factor of power regarding its effectiveness. When dealing with states however it is important not to ignore the individual, as there is always someone responsible for applying the power of a state we can assume that some of their behavior is based upon their cultural environment and some upon the objective condition of their state (Harvey 2005, p 90). There is also leeway for the influence of the personalities of those responsible for the state's behavior. Consequently, state behavior will always be to a certain extent unpredictable.

Secondly, there is the fact that power is not a quantity of anything. A state cannot "have power" so to speak rather it can only have power over another state, namely when it can force that state to behave in accordance to their desires. It makes having power by a state about the target state whose behavior is to be affected (“In Pradella and in Marois” 2015, p316). Consequently, talk about being "powerful" is not more than an assumption. A third consequence is that two states can simultaneously "have power" over each other. This can be emphasized using the example of the United States having power over the Soviet Union in Cuba while the Soviet Union had power over the U.S. in East Berlin.

Finally, the last consequence of the nature of power is that in addition to the incalculability of the psychological factor many of the means and methods are too incalculable and totally unpredictable in their effect so that the same method may not produce equal results (Schulz-Forberg, & Olsen 2014, p9). It can, therefore, have different effects upon the psyche depending upon the situation or the relationship in which it is used.

Furthermore, the methods are culture-bound, and so their effectiveness can change with the changing interests that motivate men (Makovicky 2016, p67). These uncertainties, therefore, make it difficult for states to realize their power potential until faced with a real situation. The only certain way for a state to know whether it has power is to use its power potential and success will indicate which state was more powerful.

Case Studies

Neo-liberalism is completely the opposite of what the welfare state stands for. Here, the government has a policy of laissez-faire, by not having such impact in the economic aspect of the state and by making deregulations, privatizations and radical tax cuts. Even if it sounds that this political ideology does not make any good for the state by having privatized most of the public sector, one of the characteristics that make the neo-liberalism a good way to implement it in the policy of the state, is that it allows the free trade among other countries (Sellar and Pástor 2015, p 343). This done by eliminating any tariff barrier in most of the cases and by doing this it lets the state to be part of the globalization that the actual world is living in the market.

The government of the PAN is well known for being able to maintain the economy stable during the periods of the Ex-Presidents Vicente Fox and Felipe Calderon with an inflation of 49%, a low rate compared to the last Presidential term of Salinas de Gortari and Zedillo (Steger and Roy 2010, p345). In a corrupt society like Mexico, the neo-liberalism allows the rich people to get richer, and the poor people get poorer. Neo-liberalism in this aspect could be a negative tool for the Mexican's economy, if the power only stays in a few hands of the autocratic groups of the Mexican society, probably this will increase the GDP of Mexico, but only a few people will be able to live under the rules of it.

Since the international system is labeled anarchic, meaning that no high actor has power over the world states, neoliberalism principal surroundings achieve lasting peace and cooperation between the international communities. For this reason, since the start of the Ukraine Crisis, powers in the west have concentrated on neoliberalism principles (Tsatsanis 2006, p18). A central principal of neoliberalism relies on the decreasing usefulness of military power for the main idea is that military power does not lead to creating international peace.

Consequently, when the West tried to bring Ukraine into the EU, it was exercising the idea of strengthening interstate cooperation. Ukraine, who was facing political and economic turmoil before the crisis, was seeking assistance from the international community to strengthen the state. By bringing Ukraine into the EU, and ensuring democratic policies within the structure of Ukraine, the West was trying to continue the path of international peace and cooperation. This, however, did not bode well with some of the pro-Russian Ukrainians who wanted to continue to strengthen ties with Russia. This split between the West and the pro-Russian aid was the main cause of the crisis today (Tsatsanis 2006, p19). When Russia invaded Crimea and furthered troops into the mainland of Ukraine, it went against the interests of the international community.

The Western powers’ choice of enabling Ukraine to break away from the Russian hold and join the international community shook the balance of power. Instead of allowing Ukraine to cut ties with Russia and join the EU, Russia outbid the EU's proposal and then eventually moved to invaded Ukraine for fear of losing their resource.

Russia, acting out of this fear of losing a crucial ally and resource to the Western powers popular notions, put its troops on Ukraine's mainland under their personal obligations to defend their interests. The foreign policy of the West acknowledged this action from Russia and began working to halt the operation. The method used was through harsh economic sanctions being put on Russia as a way to show the preference of the international community was for Russia to cease what they are doing (Della et al. 2017, p 231). If the Western powers adopted a realist approach to foreign policy, the Western powers would have used military force against the invasion of Russia, an approach that in a liberal perspective is the last resort.

By staying the path of using economic sanctions against Russia, as well as gaining a significant amount of negativity towards Russia from other nations, the threat of an all-out war decreases and the course of international peace can continue. Their foreign policy not only keeps them from using their state's military force to stop the crisis, avoiding domestic backlash and an international war but also puts pressure on Russia to cease operations due to the economic hold the western powers have in the country without a direct threat to Russia's military security. These actions also allow the international community to begin to cooperate with one another because, in this day and age, trading and globalization are huge part of state policy that many states do not wish to lose (Cafruny and Ryner 2003, p 67). The Western powers are aiming for the idea that with enough backlash from a cooperative international community, Russia being the black-sheep, will see the growing resistance as well as the growing economic sanctions hurting the Russian economy and eventually stop their attack on Ukraine (Collier 2011, p 34). This pressure from the West is holding down the threat of war, and showing Russia that losing this conflict in Ukraine outweighs the loss it will absorb if it continues the path of using military power.

When approaching the crisis from a neoliberalism perspective on Russia's foreign policy, it is evident there is a large difference. Russia's tactics can be better portrayed through a realist point of view, for their actions correlate with the principles of realism. Similar to the liberal policy, realism believes that the international system falls under international anarchy. However, the difference being that neoliberalism finds that interstate communities can lessen the idea of separation, and work towards international cooperation, while realism believes in "self-help"; meaning that a state cannot rely on anyone but themselves (Collier 2011, p 56). Thus, under realism, a state's security is the primary interest for if that state has a high safety and continues to increase it; the security of other states will decrease. With this principle, a realist state considers itself a unitary rational actor whose purpose is to pursue self-interests to increase national security, and with this increase of security, it heightens to their primary goal of survival. To survive is to set oneself apart from the other states, under a realist view this is done solely through raising a state's military strength (Della et al. 2017, p238). Where neoliberalism finds strength against an anarchic world through interstate cooperation, realism finds the strength to survive in military power and the security of the state's interests, which exhibits the traits of Russia in the Ukrainian Crisis.

To the extent improvement is concerned, a wide range of advancement models and hypotheses have shaped and framed its history in the most recent century. Neo- liberalism has played a major impact on development and in fact has been adopted academically and throughout development practices. The main focus behind neoliberalism is to amplify economic growth, stop any state intervention in the economy and establish a free market.

Even though some countries found that buying into to such a system would be much easier than opposing it, other countries realized they didn't have a choice and were pressured with the threat of sanctions and penalties to adopt a neoliberal set of morals and principles. Harvey Veltmeyer states, “Neo-liberalization has swept across the world like a vast tidal wave of institutional reform and discursive adjustment (Harvey 2005, p 120). Besides, the rules of engagement now established through the WTO and by the IMF instantiate neoliberalism as a global set of rules. All states that sign on to the WTO and the IMF agree to abide by these rules or face severe penalties" (Harvey 2005, p 120). My problem with neoliberalism is that I believe it is used as a tool for imperialism and colonialism and that superior countries use it in their interests. For example, take into account the Cold War; the United Sates claimed that it wanted to help develop other countries, but in reality, it's obvious that its only intentions were to create allies against the Soviet Union. We know some states chose to buy into such a system voluntarily and we also know that through a means of "pressure and coercion" (Harvey 2005, p124) others did so as well. What does this say about Neoliberalism? Neo-liberalism has, in short, "become hegemonic as a mode of discourse” (Harvey 2005, p124). While those who stand with neoliberalism may argue that a system of this sort is a route to political and economic freedom, I disagree to an extent.

Look at the United States in Iraq for example, when the U.S invades a country like Iraq in the name of neoliberalism, it promises to raise standards of living, spread democracy and give that country a finer political and economic system. However, one must ask who is benefiting from this? Iraq or the United States? When the army came in to establish democracy, the government they left behind had established economic policies that greatly benefitted the United States. Neoliberals may argue that neoliberalism gave Iraq a liberated enterprise and a free market to trade freely and grow their economy, and in fact, this is true, but my argument is who ever said Iraq's system and the economy were ready for the world's market. Take into account the economy of the United States back in the 1800's. As Hadiz and Internat Workshop reports, “from 1816 through 1945, tariffs in the USA were among the highest in the world, which in fact allowed the U.S and other similar countries to successfully established an industrialized system behind tariff barriers " (2006, p69). Almost all of the today's rich countries used tariff protection and subsidies to develop their industries. In essences, without taxes and tariffs a premature economy will remain underdeveloped and never sum up the means to flourish within a neoliberal system unless aided by one of the superior countries.

Institutions like the IMF and the World Bank are regarded as Neo-Liberalist and that it was these institutions that ultimately gave way to Neo-liberalist movement. For instance, the IMF and World Bank add an excess of funds in the international banks due to the massive oil profits of that time. So for the money to gain some interest, they offered it to the Less-Developed Countries so that their money could make money (Della et al. 2017, p137). Once this money was given to these countries, the IMF and World Bank maintained strict rules and regulations as to how and where this money would be spent, mainly to back into the economy for better trade purposes. This theory is roughly a capitalist's dream, as it is more about gaining high economic ground, then it does about the global social structure. The difference here between the realist theory is that instead of seeing things as they are today regarding war and economic instability, Neo-Liberalists look to the past to determine what needs to change and how production and the economy can prosper better in the future.

There is a feeling that the capitalist theory does not work for the third world nations because as the developed world continues gaining from surplus, the third world remains underdeveloped. The "economic dependence causes this these states have in the developed countries, especially in the Neo-Liberalist institutions of the IMF and the World Bank" (Kapur & Wagner 2011, p 66) In other words, the rich are benefiting from the poor. It maintains that if a surplus of economic funds were placed accordingly, it would enable underdeveloped nations to participate in the global market. Instead of only trading the raw materials, third world nations would benefit from producing the entire product and splitting the profit amongst its people.

Marxists believe that Multinational Corporations take away from state equality as well because they too are out for the gain and limit what their workers earn. For example: in the presentation presented in this class, the Marxist theory was dealt with regarding the MNC's. One, in particular, was the Wal-Mart Corporation. Their products are manufactured in Asia, and its employees are exposed to severe human rights infractions, plus they may as well be considered slaves for the amount they make. There is no way the state that contains these sweatshops will manage to gain ahead in the global economy because the state economy is in jeopardy. There is little if no trade is occurring within these countries, making them more and more dependent on the IMF and World Bank which are ultimately funded by the first world nations. Marxism looks at how if given a chance, people make good commodities in the global market economically. If there is more of equality-based market then everybody and every state benefits positively.

Regarding similarities, the idea of "people used as commodities" (Kapur and Wagner, 2011, p89) is utilized in the Neo-Liberalist theory. This is similar because, within the Neo-Liberalist theory, the capitalist aspect looks to what states offer regarding production. Hence those that produce products are ultimately the people on the processing line. The more workers the state can acquire the more it can produce.

Conclusion

Neoliberalism may seem beneficial in different aspects, however, with regards to some, it fails to guide to any lasting development strategy. Not only does it jeopardize premature economies, but it also works in the interests of the superior nations, giving them an upper hand, leaving the providence of the inferior country, its economy and its people at the mercy of corporate institutions. All, in all, this type of system is extremely limited because anything other economy is overlooked. Furthermore, treating the status quo as nothing more than a mere number.

Bibliography

Baldwin, D. A. (1993). Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The contemporary debate. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.

Cafruny, A. W., & Ryner, M. (2003). A ruined fortress?: Neoliberal hegemony and transformation in Europe. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Collier, S. J. (2011). Post-Soviet social: Neoliberalism, social modernity, biopolitics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Della, P. D., Andretta, M., Fernandes, T., O'Connor, F., Romanos, E., & Vogiatzoglou, M. (2017). Late Neoliberalism and its Discontents in the Economic Crisis: Comparing Social Movements in the European Periphery. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Demmers, J., Fernández, J. A. E., & Hogenboom, B. (2012). Good governance in the era of global neoliberalism: Conflict and depolitization in Latin America, Eastern Europe Asia and Africa. London: Routledge.

Hadiz, V. R., & Internat. Workshop. (2006). Empire and neoliberalism in Asia. London [u.a.: Routledge.

Harvey, D. 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

In Pradella, L., & In Marois, T. (2015). Polarising development: Alternatives to neoliberalism and the crisis. London : Pluto Press.

Kapur, J., & Wagner, K. B. (2011). Neoliberalism and global cinema: Capital, culture, and Marxist critique. New York: Routledge.

Makovicky, N. (2016). Neoliberalism, personhood, and postsocialism: Enterprising selves in changing economies. London: Routledge.

Schulz-Forberg, H., & Olsen, N. (2014). Re-inventing western civilisation: Transnational reconstructions of liberalism in Europe in the twentieth century. Newcastle upon Tyne : Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Print.

Sellar, C., & Pástor, R. (March 01, 2015). Mutating Neoliberalism: The Promotion of Italian Investors in Slovakia before and after the Global Financial Crisis. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39, 2, 342-360.

Steger, M. B., & Roy, R. K. (2010). Neoliberalism: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford university press.

Swarts, J. (2013). Constructing neoliberalism: Economic transformation in Anglo-American democracies. Toronto [Ontario] : University of Toronto Press, Beaconsfield, Quebec : Canadian Electronic Library.

Tsatsanis, E. (2006). Neoliberalism in southern Europe: The ideological correlates of social structure and institutions in Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece. Pullman, Wash: Washington State University.

Wacquant, L., 2002, ‘The Curious Eclipse of Prison Ethnography in the Age of Mass Incarceration’, Ethnography, Vol: 3: 371-397