Globalization and the tensions between Global Superpowers: a Realism vs Liberalism analysis
In search for power, competition allows a player to win, tie, or collapse the game. Globalization has shaped our world, its presence is generally considered to interconnect economic, social, and cultural relations across borders (Jackson et al.: 2022: 293).
As its counterpart, deglobalization is a concept that addresses a process of global disintegration, where states gain more independence regarding trade, control over protectionist policies, and disregard international institutions (European Union 2022). Both elements are discussed in Norrin Ripsman’s article: “Globalization, deglobalization and Great Power Politics”. Ripsman, examines the topic of international balance and security from a Neoclassical realist perspective, where his main argument highlights that the high tensions between global powers are the result of a major competition for hegemony generated by an accelerated globalization process (Ripsman 2021). Hence, the academic relevance this essay holds is the study of how the international system is altered, whether interdependence is favorable for the world structure, or if it may decay. Socially, it addresses how people are influenced by the decisions their states make regarding their foreign policies. This essay will explain Ripsman’s neoclassical perspective alongside the theoretical assumptions he makes and examine if his argument can pass sufficiency and probability tests under the theoretical perspective of both realism and liberalism. The essay will consequently demonstrate that Ripsman’s argument survives the realist test while it fails under the liberalist tests.
Neoclassical realism is a theoretical perspective that acknowledges the international structure (systemic level) and takes into consideration domestic policies (at the nation-state and individual decision-maker levels)(Jackson et al.: 2022: 93–94). Similarly, when breaking 2 down Ripsman’s article, this perspective can be evidenced in the explanation of how the international cooperation of powers, alongside globalization, affects the stability of the international system, while also addressing the factor that surrounds leaders when making a decision due to domestic pressure, such as Putin’s case of economic delivery expectations (Ripsman 2021: 1331). Likewise, Ripsman makes some realist assumptions; the first is a neorealist perspective assessing the international system as anarchic, meaning that there is no authority above states to enforce rules. This reasoning is followed by another argument he produced, where defiance of the unipolar hegemonic power (the US) by other rising powers, generates high tensions that scale to conflict, which is the realist Power Transition Theory (Lai 2011: 5). Nonetheless, he also takes into consideration a liberalist assumption, embracing republican and interdependence liberalism, explaining that a democratization path can provide a peaceful window of time and economic interdependency avoids direct conflict between nations (Jackson et al.: 2022).
Ripsman’s standpoint is clear: globalization causes high tensions between global powers. The article argues that globalization causes accelerated progress of other rising powers. This is supported by two connecting arguments: these rising powers defy hegemonic power, and deglobalization results from power searching for unipolar hegemony since globalization leads to inequality among states and within their populations. This logic structure will proceed to be examined under the two theoretical approaches mentioned in the introduction.
The realist perspective mainly consists of three principles: States, Survival, and Self-help (Jackon et al: 2021). The overarching idea is that the main unit of the international system are the states (some branches dive into the domestic policy like classical realism), where the state’s self-interests come first, in addition to the perseverance of autonomy, relative power, and protection of borders (ibid.). Ripsman’s argumentation is probable under this perspective because (specifically classical) realism follows the idea that there are no permanent or final solutions regarding problems in the realm of politics and international relations, meaning that there cannot be everlasting peace (idem: 75). Consequently, it relates to the idea that the ‘globalization that provides peace’ is not going to endure (the peaceful 3 window of time is doomed to fail), and conflict among states will arise, especially when they are on the lookout for their own benefit and search for power. Furthermore, Ripman’s argumentation will also be proven sufficient because in realism it is understood that international relations are “primarily a struggle between the great powers for domination and security” (idem: 68). Indicating that the argument of states recurring to globalization in order to have fewer constraints in the international system is the best explanation of how increasing competition leads to high tensions. The reasoning is that by having fewer constraints, they can have more dominance in the economic field to achieve a unipolar hegemonic position that protects them from adversaries.
The liberalist perspective mainly consists of an international system directed towards global cooperation, collaboration, and help through international institutions and democratic peace (idem: 104–106). States are expected to be driven by self-interest but also fall in line with globalization, interdependence and absolute gains (ibid.). Ripsman’s argumentation partly achieves to pass the probability test because both Ripsman and liberalism acknowledge that economic interdependence generated a window of peace after the cold war until the previous decade. However, the accuracy of the standpoint ultimately fails the test because in liberalism globalization is considered a means to achieve a balance of power that can maintain peace (not only for a limited window of time) and alleviate competitive tensions, not generate them (ibid). This completely contradicts Ripsman’s standpoint in which he argues that interdependence leads to globalization, which eventually leads to tensions among states. Consequently, the argument also fails the liberalist sufficiency test because there is no clear explanation of why high tensions are the result of accelerated globalization, as well as taking into consideration that multiple factors could have caused the decisions of states inclining toward deglobalization.
Thus far, Ripsman’s argumentation passes the probability and sufficiency tests under the realist evaluation, and it fails under the liberalist evaluation. Realism agrees with the argumentation since it offers an explanation that globalization eventually leads to conflict, supporting one of the main realist ideals, whereas unipolar hegemony maintains peace. Liberalism clashed with that perspective, and it fails its evaluation because globalization 4 under its criteria is not a means that exposes the desire to compete for power, but a direction into regulated economic cooperation. In essence, this essay proved that the analyzed article presents a standpoint that can be contested. Some perspectives in the field of International Relations can identify a well-structured and logical argumentative sequence, while others reject it and go on to search for other explanations.
Bibliography:
(EU) European Union (2022). Deglobalisation. Brussels: EU
Jackson, R., Møller, J. and Sørensen, G. (2022). Introduction to International Relations, theories and approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lai, D. (2011). “The Power Transition Theory”, Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, 5–28.
Ripsman, N. (2021). “Globalization, deglobalization and Great Power Politics” International Affairs, 97(5): 13317–1333.
