The four texts that are discussed in this paper all had the same underlying theme. In the 21st century, the world has become more globalized than ever before, and with it, the fields of politics, the economy and the roles of statehood are evolving. It is now up to global political economists to figure out what consequences these changes entail. This is where the four papers either deal with different aspects of these consequences or simply disagree.
Cohen’s text is about the history of International Political Studies (IPE) and its different approaches. IPE originated from interna¬¬¬¬tional relations. As states were getting to be more interdependent, especially in the financial sector, the need for a new field of study to explain this trend …show more content…
While he agrees that America is declining and China is rising, Wohlforth argues that Layne’s method of argument is flawed. The main gripe Wohlforth has with Layne’s essay is the severe deviation from the scientific method. He argues that many of Layne’s terms are not clearly defined, which generates ambiguity. Layne also makes many claims that are unfalsifiable, again something that goes against the scientific method. For example, he argues that on the global stage balancing powers are always on the way in the near future. This cannot be proven because the “near future” can always be extended. Layne also argues that economic growth has a causal relationship to military strength, for which there is a correlation, yet according to Wohlforth is not necessarily causal relationship. Wohlforth cites the fact that at the British Empire’s height, china had a much larger economy, yet Layne still considers the British Empire to be the sole Superpower of the time. This comes from the need to analyse more than just economics when evaluating …show more content…
As stated in the beginning of his text, a realist believes that the state and its national interests are the highest priority in keeping society away from anarchy. Therefore the state is held in very high regard, and economic activity is marked as less important. Yet in the late 20th and 21st century, power has been steadily eroding from states due to globalization, and in large part trade agreements. However, there is no guarantee that the current trend will continue. China is aggressively attempting to become a power that can rival America, and it will not be content with maintaining the US status quo. If Layne’s “Pax Americana” or exclusive American domination will indeed come to an end, international relations will decline. By consequence, military strength and national interests will once again take a higher priority, giving strength to the realist theory.
The main thing that I took away from reading these texts is that our world, politics and power are constantly changing. It is easy to assume that the current status quo is permanent because it is easy to look at how the world has changed in the past and forget that it will change as rapidly and drastically in the future as well. This is of course, a fallacy as is made clear by the fact that China is rising and soon ready to challenge America. Whether it succeeds or collapses before it can become the local hegemon, there will once
Cohen’s text is about the history of International Political Studies (IPE) and its different approaches. IPE originated from interna¬¬¬¬tional relations. As states were getting to be more interdependent, especially in the financial sector, the need for a new field of study to explain this trend …show more content…
While he agrees that America is declining and China is rising, Wohlforth argues that Layne’s method of argument is flawed. The main gripe Wohlforth has with Layne’s essay is the severe deviation from the scientific method. He argues that many of Layne’s terms are not clearly defined, which generates ambiguity. Layne also makes many claims that are unfalsifiable, again something that goes against the scientific method. For example, he argues that on the global stage balancing powers are always on the way in the near future. This cannot be proven because the “near future” can always be extended. Layne also argues that economic growth has a causal relationship to military strength, for which there is a correlation, yet according to Wohlforth is not necessarily causal relationship. Wohlforth cites the fact that at the British Empire’s height, china had a much larger economy, yet Layne still considers the British Empire to be the sole Superpower of the time. This comes from the need to analyse more than just economics when evaluating …show more content…
As stated in the beginning of his text, a realist believes that the state and its national interests are the highest priority in keeping society away from anarchy. Therefore the state is held in very high regard, and economic activity is marked as less important. Yet in the late 20th and 21st century, power has been steadily eroding from states due to globalization, and in large part trade agreements. However, there is no guarantee that the current trend will continue. China is aggressively attempting to become a power that can rival America, and it will not be content with maintaining the US status quo. If Layne’s “Pax Americana” or exclusive American domination will indeed come to an end, international relations will decline. By consequence, military strength and national interests will once again take a higher priority, giving strength to the realist theory.
The main thing that I took away from reading these texts is that our world, politics and power are constantly changing. It is easy to assume that the current status quo is permanent because it is easy to look at how the world has changed in the past and forget that it will change as rapidly and drastically in the future as well. This is of course, a fallacy as is made clear by the fact that China is rising and soon ready to challenge America. Whether it succeeds or collapses before it can become the local hegemon, there will once