International Relations

Write a 3-4 page memo about the lesson reading discuss the questions in the Course Syllabus for the given readings(File Attached), referring to the reading to give answers. The memo MUST be 12pt type font, one-inch margins, numbered pages.

ANSWER

Memorandum

To:

From:

Date:

The concept of globalization is a misnomer. In essence, it has been incorrectly or unsuitably applied because it was made long before the true nature of globalization was understood again due to the wrong assumptions that multinational companies or corporations have had regarding globalization. Notably, Despite the revolution in transportation and communication, as well as significant advances in trade liberalization over the previous three decades, national economies continue to be surprisingly isolated from one another (Rodrik, 1997). As economist Paul Krugman has often emphasized, this isolation has a fundamental meaning: Most governments in the advanced industrial world are not as bound by economic globalization as is usually assumed. They retain significant autonomy in governing their economies, developing social programs, and preserving institutions that differ from their trading partners.

On the other hand, political and social institutions offer a lot of support to the markets, to begin with; the political institutions support the markets through policy formation implementation; for example, a political institution may choose to create policies that promote capitalism and those that follow the Marxist forecasts in their territory. Notably, Capitalist economies are pushing against national borders in search of economic imperium on a global scale (Berber 1992). Again, whatever else has occurred to Marxism’s scientific forecasts has shown to be accurate in this area. All national economies are now subject to more extensive, international marketplaces within their borders. In addition, the political institutions are also responsible for law and order, which promotes peace. Arguably, international peace and stability are necessary ingredients for a prosperous international economy (Berber 1992). Parochialism, isolation, fractiousness, and bloodshed are all adversaries of markets.

Additionally, social institutions, especially those related to skill and knowledge acquisition, contribute to competitive advantage and specialization within the framework of global economic insertion (Rainbird & Ramirez 2012). Social institutions impact labor supply and regulation, influencing local enterprises’ capacities, skills, and labor practices. This has a significant contribution to the development of global markets since they directly impact the markets. Arguably, it is possible to have a global institution; this is because we have ad numerous global institutions formed in the past years that are very successful such as the united nations.

The difference between global integration and convergence in globalization is Markets necessitate effectiveness, not perfection. This leaves plenty of room for persistent disparities in national economic policy preferences, institutional structures, and performance patterns. Second, home institutions operate as a buffer against the effects of international market forces. Institutions change significantly across countries, resulting in significant cross-national diversity in economic actors’ desires and capacities such as firms, unions, policymakers, etc. (Kenworthy, 1997). On the other hand, integration is The extent to which national borders do not constrain the space dimension of a specific social process. The precise concept of international integration and associated indicators vary depending on the observer’s point of view (de Lombaerdei & Iapadreii, 2008). Notably, the position of a single country or region in relation to the rest of the world In this context, gauging international integration entails determining how to open a country is to partnerships with the rest of the world when viewed as a single partner country. A prominent example is a trade-to-GDP ratio in the economic sphere, which is universally regarded as the most intuitive metric of international openness. Again, A higher level of international integration can be viewed as an indicator of societal progress in and of itself, as it demonstrates that human societies are increasingly acknowledging their common destiny (de Lombaerdei, & Iapadreii, 2008). Furthermore, international integration encourages the provision of critical components of society progress, such as transnational public goods and economic growth.

National institutions are essential despite the increasing openness of markets. Notably, national Institutions can either be formal or informal. Formal institutions govern a society’s behavior (Salomon, 2016). They often shape behavior through rules, decrees, and edicts that define legal and prohibited acts. Formal institutions are responsible for enforcing clear rules in addition to originating, changing, and repealing them.

On the other hand, Informal institutions are equally important in that, on the other hand, do not shape or explicitly regulate conduct and activity; instead, they legitimize activity through a set of unwritten, tacit standards that grow through time in society. Informal institutions establish order by endorsing and even rewarding certain actions while forbidding or ostracizing individuals who engage in others. These national institutions are resilient in the sense that they are able to recover quickly whenever there is a crisis.

Berger sees firms building different competitive strategies for global value chains; according to the literature (BERGER, 2006), the advent of new forms of industrial organization, based on networks, allowing for changes in company internationalization tactics, primarily through the adoption of productive externalization schemes, beginning in the 1980s. Arguably, this change allowed a corporate restructuring in which the trend was for corporations to concentrate their productive efforts on their core activities while outsourcing the balance of their production to other agents throughout the world.

References

Barber, B. R. (1992). Jihad vs. McWorld.-Atlantic Monthly. March. P

de Lombaerdei, P., & Iapadreii, P. L. (2008). International integration and societal progress: A critical review of globalization indicators. Statistics, Knowledge, and Policy 2007 Measuring and Fostering the Progress of Societies: Measuring and Fostering the Progress of Societies.

Kenworthy, L. (1997). Globalization and economic convergence. Competition & Change, 2(1), 1-64.

Rainbird, H., & Ramirez, P. (2012). Bringing social institutions into global value chain analysis: the case of salmon farming in Chile. Work, employment and society, 26(5), 789-805.

Rodrik, D. (1997). Sense and nonsense in the globalization debate. Foreign Policy, 19-37.

Salomon, R. (2016). The Impact of National Institutions on Globalization. In Global Vision (pp. 35-48). Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

.