Commercial liberalism is a theory of international relations related to the political school of liberalism , the main thesis of which is that economic interdependence (openness of economic interdependence ), openness of borders in trade and economy inevitably contributes to peace, international cooperation and cooperation due to the interdependence of interests of participants . Along with the theory of the democratic world , it is one of the foundations for the formation of the foreign policy of the leading Western states.
Content
History
In the 18th century, I. Kant wrote about trade as a factor leading to the world [1]
| The spirit of commerce that sooner or later takes possession of every nation is incompatible with war. He sooner or later seize every nation. |
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, commercial liberalism was not yet formed as a theory. However, supporters of the ideas of commercial liberalism include A. Smith , whose theoretical reasoning was aimed at establishing interdependencies between the conflict over resources and open markets [2] . Later similar reasoning was continued in his works by J. Schumpeter [3] .
Reasonable interpretations of commercial liberalism appeared only in the late 1930s, together with the work of E. Stallei [4] , who noted that trade creates prerequisites for cooperation, but does not guarantee it [5] . After the 1980s, the ideas of commercial liberalism were developed by R. Keohain and A. Moravczyk .
Basic Theory of Theory
Commercial liberalism is based on one of the key assumptions of liberalism — social demands are expressed through the state [6] . The state is the main actor of international relations, however, social groups take part in the formation of these social requirements, using the state as a platform to promote their interests, respectively, they influence the behavior of political actors on the world stage.
The central element of the theory is the idea of economic interdependence [7] , according to which, in the case of a general division of labor, maintaining a unified system of political and economic institutions, profits will be evenly distributed among all participants of free markets. Free-trade is beneficial to all states if the global economic and political systems are united, and strong actors assume the obligations of developing economies.
According to theory, the natural impact of trade leads to peace. Two nations that trade with each other become interdependent when one is interested in buying and the other is in sale — all unions are based on mutual needs. Trade in itself is not the guarantor of peace, but trade on a non-discriminatory basis in an organized political framework promotes cooperation based on enlightened national notions of personal interest, which emphasize the superiority of production over war.
It is important to note that the incentives for peaceful behavior are due to the international environment, which is characterized by regulated exchange patterns and certain rules of conduct.
For rich countries, the dependence of the distribution of labor on the size of the market is characteristic [8] ; to increase wealth and productivity, international division of labor and open markets are necessary. Accordingly, protectionism and economic nationalism only contribute to the destabilization of the international system.
Criticism of Commercial Liberalism
- Not all changes in the international system can be explained through shifts in models of economic relations. Predicting the behavior of political actors based on the “trade effects” is one-sided. Commercial liberalism gives an idea of only one of the stimulating factors in the development of international relations.
- Commercial liberalism is untenable as it relies on an unreasonable theory of development (the largest commercial partners are de facto fighting, for example, as was the case between France and Germany during the interwar period).
- The more transnational commercial ties, the easier it is to use coercive tools in world politics [9] .
Notes
- ↑ Kant I., “Towards the Eternal Peace” - p. 26
- Ach Zachary R. Zellmer (2016), Andrew Moravcsik 's Taking Preferences Paper 58. - p. five
- ↑ Ibidem, p. five
- Eugene Stalley (1939), The World Economy in Transition (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1939), p. 340
- ↑ Robert O. Keohane (1990), "International Liberalism Reconsidered," in John Dunn, ed., The Economic Limits to Modern Politics, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press - p. 186
- ↑ Andrew Moravcsik (1997), Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics - p. 515
- ↑ Ibidem, p. 7
- ↑ Ibidem, p. sixteen
- ↑ Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman eds. (2003), International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field, Cambridge: MIT Press - pp. 162-164
Literature
- Andrew Moravcsik (1997), Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics
- Eugene Stalley (1939), The World Economy in Transition (New York: Council on Foreign Relations)
- Robert O. Keohane (1990), "International Liberalism Reconsidered," in Cambridge University Press, John D. Dunn, ed., The Economic Limits to Modern Politics, Cambridge, UK
- Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman eds. (2003), International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field, Cambridge: MIT Press
- Zachary R. Zellmer (2016), Andrew Moravcsik's Analysis of Taking Preferences Seriously: A Theory of International Politics, Honors Projects. Paper 58
- Kant I., “To the Eternal Peace”