Have the worst wounds of the crisis been avoided? We might have cauterized the injury with an infection still inside. To name a few: advanced economies, the European Union (EU) and emerging nations face dire economic imbalances; archaic geopolitical style maneuvering is occurring at rising rates in Eastern Europe while Africa and the Arab region are bleeding migrants in alarming numbers. Even if you do not add in a changing climate, these relations will not equal a description of ‘smooth sailing’ for global economics in the foreseeable future. At the very least, they show an expressed need to move away from crisis economics as a ‘new normal’ and return to the ability to use conventional Keynesian models of economics. If taken as critical, as they should be, there is a need for broad structural changes that would see new models of economics that temper global arrangements in exchange for a more powerful state.
An original answer based on my Quora.com response.
Since the 1970’s, China, with the largest population worldwide, has been opening up its economy. Any industry it grows in is going to reverberate globally more so than other comparable nations because of the population alone. For example, look into the global scare that happened when textile regulation ended. Numerous countries were justifiably worried because of China’s population and expertise in textile.
In the 1990’s America further liberalized its economy with a sharp easing of regulation; this spurred American FDI (foreign direct investment) in other countries to soar. FDI can be thought of physically as actually building the factory and hiring the workers (all that takes an investment, right?). Because of deregulation, it was more profitable to move production to a place where it’s cheaper to produce and less expensive on labor. Why do they do this? American consumers demand quick, cheap and highly variable products. American companies are maximizing their profits and also trying to satisfy American consumers.
It’s as simple as that, and if you are told otherwise, please, critically question it.
60% of all Chinese exports are from foreign-owned companies. So, 60% of what China sells is because of foreign corporations desiring it. (A Trade War with China?, Neil Hughes, 2005).
We must redefine the norms and understandings of all refugees in the 21st century. The definition a refugee needs to be broadened and non-refoulment needs to be strengthened. Under the current refugee regime definitions, there are numerous groups that can be excluded from asylum. Regarding non-refoulment, nations have turned to containment, often external to national borders, to confine refugees versus resettlement to new homes. Refugees who are denied refugee status under the current criteria, and therefore are barred from help, will still seek refuge away from their home. Containment facilities act as a gravity pit of exclusion that possibly strips refugees of many basic human rights. These problems are manifested in refugee containment, illegal smuggling, and a rise in fear-based border control rhetoric. Increased refugee numbers can come about progressively and humanely, or it can come about with increased divisiveness. Either way, displaced migration will continue to be pervasive with events both natural and man-made.
Access to the ability to achieve an elevated sense of livelihood is uneven within the broad process of globalization. This is especially true in a more knowledge-based economy, which seems to be the current norm. Inequality of this kind is not only between nation-states, but for each and every one of us within our respective countries. Using alternative theories such as dependency theory, international political economy and geographical political economy, the dynamics of inequality will be highlighted and explored. Incorporating material pertaining to neoliberal theory, hegemony, regimes, and denationalization will show the discord surrounding the causal effects of uneven development. These theories, however, do not disprove developmental inequality but rather add depth and nuance to the argument. Focused emphasis in the regions of Latin America, and Southeast Asia – including China and Japan – will be used to build a case-study. These regions will illuminate how uneven development looks within international systems, and possible methods of reaching a more sustainable equilibrium.