The Jihad’s Position in Post-Cold War Metaphysical Politics A Review of: Landscapes of the Jihad: Militancy, Morality, Modernity

Faisal Devji’s book, Landscapes of the Jihad: Militancy, Morality, Modernity, develops an intriguing analysis of the role of the Islamic “jihad”, led by the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda, against the “West” within the construct of post-Cold War global political and religious chaos. The initial argument in Chapter 1, “Effects without Causes” aims to deconstruct American perceptions of the jihad created within the 9/11 Commission Report and elucidate its dualistic association between traditional Islam and a globalizing world. On the first page, Devji flips one of key arguments located toward the end 9/11 Commission Report, that in a sense, they [Al-Qaeda] were more globalized that we [the U.S.] were, on its head. Devji claims that the jihad is more global than the United States (U.S.) not because of its control over people or territory but because it is too weak to participate in such politics of control that were dominate during the Cold-War. He furthers this discussion on page 20, when he formulates his two overarching themes for the book. First, he claims that the jihad achieves globalization within a landscape of purely accidental relations, which he defines earlier as the effects from conditions, such as the East African attacks or the jihad’s transnational commercialism, in which a network like Al-Qaeda becomes global beyond politics of intentionality. Second, he argues that a consequence of the jihad outgrowing the global political landscape during the Cold-War, is that a “new kind of Muslim” is created that is not bound by the traditional cultic uniformity of Islam during that period. These two themes, which are consistent throughout the book, create an innovative and sophisticated analysis of the global jihad.

Scholarship attempting to explicate the global political order after the end of the Cold War is one of the largest fields within international relations (IR). Preeminent scholars such as: Samuel P. Huntington, Philip Bobbitt, and Francis Fukuyama, all have published extensive research concerning the landscape of the post-Cold War world order. Devji’s first theme fits within this academic discussion by incorporated the global movement of the jihad within the field. After providing the historical context for this latest jihad in chapter 2, “A Democratic History of Holy War,” which is bogged down with extremely long and convoluted history, Devji presents his initial evidence for his argument that the jihad exists within a globalized, stateless world. In Chapter 3, “Monotheistic Geographies” under the subheading, a metaphysical war, he states that, “the war itself is also a metaphysical one between Christians, Muslims and Jews… but what gives these battles global meaning is nothing less than a metaphysical war.” He uses the word metaphysical to assert that the war is based on abstract phenomena, such as culture and civilizations, rather than territory state citizenship.

This argument is similar to that of Samuel P. Huntington in his book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, in which Huntington argues that in the post-Cold War world, for the first time in world history, global politics has become multipoloar and multicivilizational and that a clash among these civilizations for global civilizational dominance is inevitable. According to Devji, the Islamic jihad is not being waged from a single geographical region but within the global imperial arms of Americanized globalization. This associates the jihad with a new global category, in which geographical, financial, and technological mobility flows through states. In Chapter 4, “Media and Martyrdom” he provides some credence to his argument by claiming that the mobility of technology through the global media galvanizes a globally fragmented but ethically connected Islamic community to join the jihad. The arguments constructed by Devji’s in association with the Huntington’s work correlate in an interesting way to form an intriguing perspective of the power relationship between the “West” and the Islamic jihad in the post-Cold War globalized political structure.

Some of Devji arguments concerning the global position of the jihad in relation to the U.S. are however slightly short sided. Devji develops the argument that the jihad has become an impossible enemy of the U.S. because it exists beyond America’s war-making potential. This argument assumes that the only tool in which the U.S. maintains global hegemony is confounded in their military dominance. However, Devji does not fully take into consideration theories concerning the power of economic liberalism. International trade and globalizing markets affect the authority of the U.S. and the jihad within the global framework. Some affects of globalization such as the effectiveness of the jihad and transnational organized crime syndicates offer challenges to U.S. national security, however, the peace and security preserved by the interconnectivity of global markets provides the U.S. with security beyond their military might. Philip Bobbitt argues in his book, The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace, and the Course of History that the market-state has emerged as the new constitutional order at the conclusion of the Cold War The argument that the global market could dictate national or transnational strategy offers a different approach to the global landscape after the Cold War. Devji does not consider this approach throughout the book and the political economy of the jihad is left unquestioned.

The second major theme within Landscapes of the Jihad is the implications of the religion on the global jihad movement. He argues that jihad not only does not exist alongside traditional forms of Islamic devotion but also actively subverts traditional Islam. He does recognize that the at least part of genealogy of the jihad originates within some historical context with Sunni Islam and the Middle East, however, he vehemently asserts that this new global movement – known as the jihad – possesses an extraordinarily diverse membership that is not united by the way of any cultic ideology or ideological commonality and can only function as a global network that disrupts old-fashioned forms of political and religious allegiance. Chapter 5, “The Death of God” elaborates on this notion of a new kind of Muslim whose character is defined by his attitude toward the law. Devji argues that the jihad represents an ethical rather than a distinctly political or religious global movement. He comes to this reasoning because the jihad is linked neither to projects of liberation, nor to religious texts or norms in any coherent way. Therefore, he claims that Osama Bin Laden justification of the violence he has managed is not meant merely to defend Muslims or retaliate against their enemies, but to regain self-respect. Devji’s argument distorts the common American perception of a religious orientated jihad movement constructed by the media and President Bush’s “crusadic” rhetoric and develops the notion of a modern and ethical jihad movement.

This is a somewhat valid argument, because in order for the jihad to exist within the construct of modern globalization it must also exist within a new modern religious paradigm. However, Devji hints at traditional religious associations that influence the characteristic of the jihad creating contradictions within his own argument. The tri-lateral monotheistic relationship between Islam, Judaism, and Christianity has inflicted numerous wars over the last thousand years. The current conflictual relationship between Judaism and Islam was developed due to the creation of the state of Israel in the Middle East in 1948. According to Devji, “Osama Bin Laden inveighs against Jews only to warn Christians not be drawn into their battles with Muslims.” This antagonism is meant to sway Christians from siding with Jews but using this anti-Semitic rhetoric in a position of power to incite religious emotions from Muslim communities begs the question whether Devji’s arguments that the jihad exists beyond traditional Islamic paradigms are valid. Devji even quotes Bin Laden who said in 2001 that, “Jihad is a duty to liberate Al-Aqsa [the Dome of the Rock mosque in Jerusalem] and to help the powerless in Palestine, Iraq and Lebanon and in every Muslim country.” Therefore, it seems that the primary objective of the jihad still exists at least partially within the framework of the traditional Islamic plight of the Palestinians against the Israelis. Devji’s use of these statements from the leaders of the global jihad seems to dispel his notions that the characteristics of the jihad are not formed by cultic traditional paradigms of Islam.

Devji’s major arguments throughout, Landscapes of the Jihad, truly develop an intriguing perspective on the political, ethical, and religious role of the jihad in the post-Cold War geopolitical structure. Although some of his insights do not take into account some of the theories and historical contexts in which the jihad exists, the book effectively reorients misperceptions concerning the jihad in the U.S. by developing a theory for the ethical and global framework of the jihad. Although Francis Fukuyama argues that the end of the Cold War represented an end of history, deriving from Hegelian principals of ideology, some of Devji’s arguments concerning the modern, globalizing, and ethical jihadist ideology suggests that history may not quite be over yet.








References

Bobbitt, Philip. The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace, and the Course of History. New York: Anchor Books, 2002. 211.

Devji, Faisal. Landscapes of the Jihad: Militancy, Morality, Modernity. Ithaca, New York: Cornell UP, 2005.

Fukuyama, Francis. The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Maxwell Macmillan International, 1992.

Huntington, Samuel P. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 1996. 21-28.

National Security and Foreign Direct Investment: The Exon-Florio Amendment

Edward M. Graham and David M. Marchick’s book entitled, US National Security and Foreign Direct Investment analyzes the relationship between the national security implications of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) from other nations into the United States (US), and the Exon-Florio Amendment to the Defense Act in the Omnibus Trade and Competitive Act of 1988. The book was published in May 2006 by the Peterson Institute for International Economics. The Institute is a private, nonprofit, and one of the few economic think tanks that are widely regarded as nonpartisan. Graham was a senior fellow at the Peterson’s institute as well as an economist for the US Treasury while Marchick is a partner with Covington & Burling and is recognized as one of the leading experts on the Exon-Florio amendment. The book contains six chapters as well as an executive summary. The book provides an encompassing analysis of the effects of the Exon-Florio amendment on the international political economy eighteen years after its legislation.

Chapter One illustrates the history of FDI in the US economy. They provide an analysis of US reactions to surges in FDI during World War I, World War II and the late 1980s leading to the Exon-Florio amendment. Even though FDI has become critical to the vibrancy of the US economy the notion that foreign firms could become dominate over US-developed technology caused rising concerns over the implications of FDI on national security. Chapter Two analyzes the legislative history of the Exon-Florio amendment. The amendment states that the President can block a transaction only if credible evidence exists that the foreign acquirer might take action that threatens national security. The evidence is reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US (CFIUS) and then presented to the President. Chapter Three examines the positive, such as efficiency spillovers in the auto industry, and negative, such as domestic firms cannot compete with some foreign firms causing a migration of labor toward foreign firms, economic effects of FDI. Chapter Four introduces their case study on the recent surge of Chinese FDI into the US. From a strategic perspective China’s attempt to acquire parts of US companies causes a variety of issues. Out of the ten largest trading partners with the US, China is the only country that is not considered a strategic or political ally. CFIUS reviews cases that usually involve highly sensitive exports of technology and China, during the last decade, has been linked to a series of high-profile breeches of US export control laws and regulations. Therefore, FDI from China will most likely be seen by CFIUS as well as various intelligence agencies as an attempt to build military strength. However, Graham and Marchick suggest that the US should continue to support China’s integration into the global economy as a positive step toward China’s economic development and possibly democratization. Chapter Five portrays the effects of the CFIUS process becoming more politicized. US companies have attempted to influence or politicize the CFIUS process to advance commercial interests unrelated to national security. Graham and Marchick conclude that this process costs the US economy by increasing uncertainty for foreign investors shying them away from acquiring US companies which therefore lowers the value of US companies. Chapter Six concludes with ideas to be included, such as adding protection of critical infrastructure as a factor for CFIUS consideration, and rejected, such as including an economic security test, by Congress to improve the Exon-Florio amendment and CFIUS.

In 1995 Edward M. Graham and Paul R. Krugman published Foreign Direct Investment in the United States. This book became the scholarly foundation for studying the effects of FDI on the US economy. Eleven years later, Graham and Marchick book utilize that foundation to elucidate on the effects of the Exon-Florio amendment on the US economy. They conclude that without FDI, US manufacturing, employment, competitiveness, and innovation will be at risk. However, as firms attempt to influence the CFIUS process toward their own self-interest the aggregate of the US economy could also become at risk but their own profit margins would be sustained in the short-run. The debate within the CFIUS between protecting US corporations’ global economic hegemony and the fundamental neoclassical economic theory free markets hovers throughout the book.

Can Solidarity Actually Save Strangers? A Review of: Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society

International relation theorists who argue that the international society should act as guardian of human rights through ethical humanitarian interventions provide a provocative philosophy of a universal duty of states to support the unsupportable. However, the descriptive history of humanitarian intervention in which the continual refusal from the most powerful of states to allow a possibly unfavorable international precedent suggests that solidarism effectively functions within a book but would fail on the ground in the next grand humanitarian crisis. Nicholas J. Wheeler, a senior lecturer at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, in his book, Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society, conducts a fascinating normative and descriptive analysis of humanitarian interventions during the Cold-War and post-Cold War eras. However, his fundamental arguments about the ethical norms of states that should construct a moral universality concerning humanitarianism fall short of developing a tangible possible solution to a humanitarian crisis. It was not clear after concluding the book, why this book, that sophisticatedly examined the history of seven important humanitarian missions under the framework of solidarism, is important if states will continue to act on behalf of their own national interest. The question that seems more relevant is how can the international society “save strangers” if the construct of the international system remains dominated by what John Mearsheimer refers to as an orderly anarchic realism?

Wheeler’s introduction effectively illustrates the important theoretical discussions within the fields of human rights and humanitarian intervention. Wheeler lays out the dualism within the study of humanitarian intervention claiming that, “humanitarian intervention exposes the conflict between order and justice at its starkest.” He elucidates these notions of order and justice by referring to the concepts of pluralism and solidarism within the English School of international relations theory. Throughout the latter section of the introduction and the first chapter, “Humanitarian Intervention and International Society”, Wheeler defines the meaning of pluralism and solidarism within the scope of humanitarian intervention. He defines the pluralist international-society theory view of humanitarian intervention as a violation of the cardinal rules of sovereignty, non-intervention, and non-use of force. An intervention, according to his definition of pluralist theorists, within another country not only defies the rules that are fundamental for international order but also could endanger the sovereign structure. Wheeler challenges this view that utilizing the concept of solidarism. He argues that the international system can be strengthened by deepening the commitment to justice by developing a system of international norms and standards.

Wheeler thoroughly and sophisticatedly develops the theoretical foundations for pluralism and solidarism. He successful asserts the solidarism approach as the fundamental framework for examining the descriptive history of humanitarian interventions. However, his arguments against the sustainability of pluralism lack definitive resolve. He identifies what the claims as a fundamental hypocrisy within the foundation of the pluralist argument for humanitarian intervention. He claims that pluralism defends the rules of society on the grounds that they uphold the conceptions of the ‘good’. However, he argues that that claim is a contradiction because the moral justification of the rules differ from actual human rights practices of states. He refers to pluralist scholar Robert H. Jackson and his ‘egg-box’ theory in his footnotes in which the intrinsic value of all states is defined by their sovereignty but also their juridical equality. Jackson’s thesis in his book, The Global Covenant: Human Conduct in a World of States, develops the argument that this contradiction, primarily in the cases of the Gulf War and the Bosnia, Kosovo crises actually demonstrates the continued durability of the world system, defined by the Treaty of Westphalia, rather than its decline. Wheeler touches on this point in his discussion of United Nations (UN) Security Council authorization. He constructs a moral argument claiming that ethical concerns should trump legality. Jackson and Pluralists would maintain that legality supports international peace and security; however this Grotian view of international relations assumes that states should accept not only a moral responsibility to protect but also the wider guardianship of human rights everywhere. This new moral discussion, which is also taken by Barnett and Finnemore to describe UN authority, does not deconstruct the pluralist argument because it also does not reflect the actual human rights practices of states, and fundamental leaves the reader pondering whether strangers can actually be saved.

In latter half of the book, Wheeler conducts a descriptive analysis of seven humanitarian interventions broken up into two sections: during the Cold-War and after the Cold-War. The section including three humanitarian interventions, India into Bangladesh, Vietnam into Cambodia, and Tanzania into Uganda, furthered the descriptive field of humanitarian history because these events were deemed illegitimate. Thomas G. Weiss’s book, The United Nations and Changing World Politics, which is one of the preeminent histories of the UN, uses only the interventions in the Palestinian, Korean, Suez and Congolese crises as his case studies for Cold-War security efforts. However, Wheeler’s choice of case studies more effectively explicates the theoretical debate between pluralism and solidarism. Each of these cases were uniquely different from the latter, post-Cold War, cases because every intervention was conducted by a lesser developed country and each were for the most part successful at bringing an end to a crisis.
However, the response from the international community to deem each intervention as international illegitimate pegs the question whether solidarism could ever realistically be the theoretical framework used by international humanitarian policy-makers. The argument raised by General Olusegen Obasanjo of Nigeria that individual states do not have a ‘duty’ to use force to change the ‘morality’ of another government with which they disagree suggests that sovereignty still dominates the structure of the international system because moral authority is not universal. Even though the interventions were successful, the ethical justifications for the interventions suggest that states could construct an argument for their own moral superior to conduct an intervention in another country. The solidarity argument that the commitment by the international toward a universally accepted concept of justice could strengthen the stability of the international system works within the framework of Wheeler’s fundamental arguments, however, as powerful states continue to protect their sovereignty ethical humanitarian interventions will also occur when it is in the best interest of a capable state.

The final section of the book examines post-Cold War interventions that were conducted, or in the case of Rwanda not conducted, by powerful countries, especially the United States. Wheeler’s description of the Kuwaiti intervention by the United States under the legal jurisdiction of the UN does not provide any additional historical incites that have not already been examined by the field. However, a discussion concerning the selectivity of exceptionality provides more credence to the realist argument that states still act in their own best interest. The legality of the U.S. and UN intervention in Somalia had be legally utilize the words, ‘unique’, ‘extraordinary’, and ‘exceptional’ in order for the Chinese and Indian delegations at the Security Council to adopt the resolution. Similarity in the case of NATO intervention in Kosovo the German foreign minister Kinkel emphasized that Kosovo was a special case and that it should not be taken as a green light for future NATO actions outside the authority of the Security Council. However, in the case of Rwanda, in which more Rwandans died during the 1994 genocide, was not deemed exceptional and the United States due to the horrific aftermath of the Somalia intervention did not believe it was in the best interest of the state to intervene. This selectivity by the UN and powerful states within the international community, especially the United States, suggests that a universally accepted commitment to international justice and humanitarianism, which Wheeler continuously argues throughout the book would strengthen the legitimacy of the international society, has not yet come to fruition.

Wheeler’s study of solidarism in Saving Strangers illustrates the potential power of a collective global identity toward humanitarian intervention in an intra-state or inter-state humanitarian crisis. The prose throughout the book, especially in the introductory section, marks Wheeler as one of the preeminent scholars of solidarity. However, the reality of the descriptive history of humanitarian interventions during the latter half of the 20th century signifies that states continue to act under a pluralist and realist theoretical framework. This truism limits the Wheeler’s thesis to a mere academic exercise.

References

Barnett, Michael, and Martha Finnemore. Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics. Ithaca, New York: Cornell UP, 2004.

Lynch, Cecelia. Rev. of The Global Covenant: Human Conduct in a World of States, by Robert Jackson. The American Political Science Review Dec. 2002: 883-884.

Mearsheimer, John J. "The False Promise of International Relations." International Security 19 (1995): 5-49.

Weiss, Thomas G., David P. Forsythe, Roger A. Coate, and Kelly-Kate Pease. The United Nations and Changing World Politics. 5th ed. Boulder: Westview P, 2007.

Wheeler, Nicholas J. Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000.

“Diplomacy and Domestic Politics”: A synopsis of Robert Putnam’s Significant Work

Robert D. Putnam’s essay, “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games” was featured in the journal International Organization, summer of 1988. Robert Putnam currently is Peter and Isabel Malkin Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University and the Kennedy School of Government. This essay precedes Professor Putnam’s most influential books, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community and Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy which are ranked among the most cited social science publications worldwide. The primary purpose of “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics” is to offer a theoretical approach toward untangling the relationship between international relations (IR) and domestic politics. He begins by presenting his case study, the Bonn Summit Conference of 1978. He explains the entanglement through developing the theoretical framework of the two-level game from the Bonn Summit of 1978 as well as determinates of the win-sets for the two representations of negotiations in international relations and domestic politics. Putnam’s application of the two-level game toward international negotiations remains relevant as the dynamics of international trade remains entangled between international relations and domestic politics.

Putnam prefaces the framework for the two-level game by deconstructing the relevance of a state-centric approach toward untangling the relationship between IR and domestic politics claiming that state-centric literature is an uncertain foundation. He concurs with Walton and McKersie that a unitary-actor assumption is often misleading and a two-level game approach more appropriately depicts the politics of international negotiations. The two-level game consists of the interconnection between the national level, where domestic groups pursue their own self-interests by lobbying the government to adopt policies in their favor and at the international level where national governments seek to maximize not only their own ability to satisfy domestic pressures but also minimize adverse consequences of foreign developments. Putnam decomposes the ratification processes of any two-level game into two stages: Level 1 (L1) and Level 2 (L2). L1 is the bargaining between negotiators, leading to a tentative agreement and L2 is a separate discussion within each group of constituents about whether to ratify the agreement. Putnam defines the win-sets for the dualistic ratification processes into first, larger win-sets make L1 agreements more likely and second the relative size of the respective L2 win-sets will affect the distribution of the joint-gains from the international bargain.

Putnam defines three factors that are important in determining the circumstances that affect the size of a win-set. Firstly, the size of the win-set depends on the distribution of power between internationalists and isolationists, homogenous or heterogeneous preferences and possible coalitions among L2 constituents. Secondly, the size of the win-set depends on the L2 political institutions and ratifications procedures. Thirdly, the size of the win-set depends on the strategies of the L1 negotiators. This includes the usage of side-payments to maximize cost effectiveness of concessions as well as the negotiators own demands and threats, uncertainty and misinformation about L2 politics on either side of the table. Putnam concludes that the only formal link between L1 and L2 negotiations are the motives of the chief negotiator which include enhancing his standing in the L2 game, shifting the balance of power at L2, and pursing his own conception of the national interest in the international context.

The theoretical analysis of Putnam’s article, according to Leonard J. Schoppa, contributed significantly to the understanding of the dynamics of international negotiations. The article eventually inspired a collaborative project that used case studies to elucidate and refine the model. The project culminated with the publications of the 1993 book Double-Edged Diplomacy: Bargaining and Domestic Politics edited by Putnam, Peter B. Evans, and Harold K. Jacobson. In a review of the book from “The American Political Science Review”, Manus I Midlarsky calls the book, “an important landmark in what has become a virtual flood tide of recent works deemphasizing the international system as an explanatory focus.” The entanglement between IR and domestic politics continues to be an important issue post-Cold War and 9/11 and therefore Putnam’s framework continues to explain the “how” and “why”.

Has Globalization Gone too Far? An Analysis of Rodrik’s Introduction

Dani Rodrik’s book, Has Globalization Gone Too Far?, which was published by the institute for international economics in 1997, examines the current tensions globalization has constructed between ensuring international economic integration without domestic social disintegration. Dani Rodrik is a professor of International Political Economy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. His scholarship has primarily focused on the effects of globalization and economic growth. In the introduction, Rodrik, firstly lays out his overall framework for the book by defining the scope of the tensions between capital owners, laborers and governments. Secondly, he introduces three sources of tensions between the global market and domestic social stability created by globalization. Thirdly, he contrasts this current phase of globalization with that of the gold standard to provide insightful historical perspective.

Rodrik begins the book by portraying possibly interrelated crises in France, the United States (U.S.), Eastern Europe, Russia and many other countries that have a common root: what Thomas L. Friedman called a “backlash against globalization”. Rodrik uses these examples of movements away from globalization to construct not only his framework but also his fundamental argument. The emerging process of “globalization”, according to Rodrik, constructed a divide between groups that have the skills and mobility to prosper in the emerging global markets and those that either lack these advantages or perceive globalization as detrimental to traditional norms and or social stability with national governments stuck in-between. From this framework he argues that the most serious challenge to the global economy lies in making globalization compatible with domestic social and political stability.

Following the basic layout of his book, Rodrik presents the three focal sources of tension that globalization has constructed between the global market and social stability. Firstly, reduced barriers of trade and investment accentuate the tension between owners of capital, highly skilled works, or professionals and unskilled or even semiskilled laborers. The demand for labor has become more elastic as working populations can be easily substituted by lower-wage workers across national boundaries. This causes laborers to incur a larger share of the costs of globalizing creating increasing social instability. Secondly, as technology standardizes and diffuses internationally, varying state identities and stages of development are forced to compete in the same global market. Questions concerning fairness and legitimacy of competitive advantage cause political tension and instability. Thirdly, globalization has made it difficult for governments to continue to provide social insurance, which was essential for developing and maintaining social stability throughout the postwar period, for domestic groups causing social tensions.

Finally, Rodrik develops a comparative analysis between the current, late 1980s, globalization movement and with the integrated world economy during the height of the gold standard in the late 19th century. Rodrik lays out the similarities and differences between the two phases of globalization in the hope of deriving lessons to apply toward the current situation. Citing Jeffrey Williamson he associates the similarities of rising inequalities between rich, labor-scare and poor labor-abundant countries to today’s growing inequality between states in the global north and global south. Rodrik states two differences, first being that restrictions on immigration were not as common in the 19th century and second, during the gold standard the volume of head-on international competition in similar products was much less than in today’s society. He concludes that continued globalization cannot be taken for granted and well managed policy making is necessary for international and domestic political stability.

One of the most interesting arguments that Rodrik lays out in this chapter is the result of globalization is “severe tension between the market and social groups such as workers, pensioners, and environmentalists, with governments stuck in the middle.” He cites Kapstein, who states unless policymakers take a more active role in managing their economies a backlash from labor will occur. I perceived this notion from Putnam’s two-level game theory but applied to globalization. Governments must negotiate with domestic constituents that are being harmed by globalization and multinational corporations and capital owners that are flourishing from globalization. This two-level game creates difficulties for governments to continuously generate win-sets thus causing more social and political instability.

The International Monetary System: Theories from Eichengreen and Cohen

Benjamin J. Cohen’s essay, “A Brief History of International Monetary Relations” and Barry Eichengreen’s essay, “Hegemonic Stability Theories of the International Monetary System” appear in consecutive order within the 1995 anthology International Political Economy: Perspectives on Global Power and Wealth edited by Jeffery A. Friedman and David A. Lake. Cohen, a professor of international political economic at University of California, Santa Barbara, elucidates on the progression of the international monetary system from an international political economy perspective while Eichengreen, a professor of economics and political science at the University of California Berkeley, goes a step further by analyzing the applicability of hegemonic stability theory on the genesis of the international monetary system but especially specific functions of the various systems. The Cohen article and the Eichengreen article offer different perspectives of the historical development of the international monetary system but their discussions complement each other creating a comprehensive analysis.

Cohen provides an historical analysis of the evolution of the international monetary system from the classical gold standard through the collapse of the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates. He immediately begins to construct the history beginning with the establishment of the international gold standard in the 1870s. Traditionally the era of the gold standard, from the 1870s to World War I, was characterized as “The Golden Age”. However, Cohen develops the argument that “The Golden Age” was a deceptive façade due to misconceptions about the practice of adjustment and the roles of national monetary policies. The interwar period, which attempted to economize the gold standard, was “doomed from the start,” due to the fundamental misconceptions of the prewar monetary system conditions. Cohen’s analysis of the Bretton Woods System is contrived from the compromises between the plans of Harry D. White and John M. Keynes for monetary reconstruction. Finally, Cohen categorizes the Bretton Woods era into two periods, firstly, the period of “dollar shortage”, which led to a beneficial disequilibrium of the international monetary system and secondly, the period of “dollar glut”, where global inflation led to the eventually collapse in 1971 of the fixed exchange rate system.

Eichengreen extrapolates on the evolution of the international monetary system by analyzing the applicability of hegemonic stability theory (HST) on three operations of the monetary system: adjustment, liquidity and the lender of last resort. Britain, during the classical gold standard, and the United States (US), during the Bretton Woods era, acted as the focal point for global adjustment harmonization due to their hegemonic power. The non-cooperative struggle for gold, during the interwar period, caused a liquidity shortage which was attributed to the lack of a strong central bank. Eichengreen claims that the hegemonic power of either Britain or the US was not necessary solely responsibility for ensuring the adequate provision of liquidity. However, the liquidity shortage during the interwar period provides strong evidence for HST. Eichengreen argues that because the basis international financial system was vulnerable to losses of confidence the notion of lender of last resort was necessary for economic stability. Eichengreen refers to Charles Kindleberger argument that only a hegemonic power can carry out the lender of last resort functions, providing countercyclical long-term lending and maintaining an open market for distress goods, on the requisite scale.

These articles, even though appear in consecutive order in Friedman and Lake’s anthology, were written many years apart from each other. The Cohen article is an excerpt from his book, Organization the World’s Money: the Political Economy of International Monetary Relations which was written in 1977 and was one of the first books to utilize the relationship between the economy and politics to describe the current state of the international money system. The Eichengreen article was from a Brookings Institute report entitled “Can Nations Agree? Issues in International Economic Cooperation” written in 1989 was able to utilize the developing theories of HST to evaluate the evolution of the international monetary system. The article’s inherit relationship, however, fabricates a thorough analysis of the international monetary system which justifies their consecutive orientation within the anthology.