This paper examines global warming as a challenge that intersects international political economy (IPE) theories — mercantilism, liberalism, and structuralism — and analyzes how each framework shapes national responses to climate change. Beginning with a survey of these three theoretical traditions and their historical development, the paper then applies them to contemporary climate politics, including international negotiations such as the Copenhagen Climate Conference. It argues that because global warming affects all nations, effective solutions require a combination of state-level resource management, individual behavioral change, and shared international responsibility, with different countries pursuing approaches shaped by their distinct economic and political self-interests.
The global economy and political spectrum vary widely from state to state and region to region. Different philosophies are adhered to, and relative to the issue of global warming — which potentially affects everyone in every country — some progress has been made in reducing carbon emissions. Yet even though this problem is global, it will take many different viewpoints and a combination of solutions to effectively combat the environmental, political, and social problems that global warming could give rise to.
Mercantilism is the idea that a state's economic power comes from international trade and is highly dependent on that state's access to capital (Cohen, 2008). This idea was very popular during the 16th and 17th centuries, and many European nations built their economic policies around it. Politically, this type of economy is relatively volatile, since its existence depends on the fluidity and freedom of trade markets between two economies. Wars and political disruptions render mercantilist states relatively powerless, and this model of international trade and economy was largely abandoned in favor of other models during the late 18th and early 19th centuries (Cohen, 2008). Mercantilism argues that the entire world is one giant marketplace and that each state's economy represents a certain portion or share of this global or regional economy. The larger the share of this economy that a state possesses, the more powerful it is relative to other states.
Mercantilists were concerned with creating as much wealth from their nation's resources as possible, including the resource of human labor (Cohen, 2008). A large workforce is key to the mercantilist argument because these workers are necessary to transform a country's resources into goods and products that can be sold on the open market. The economic power of a state rested on its ability to transform its resources into capital and wealth. If a certain type of good were available for production within one's home state, that state would try to limit or stop importation of that particular good. Economic self-reliance was important, and many countries would not trade in goods with one another, but rather chose to exchange goods for gold, silver bullion, or other raw resources. The era in which mercantilism originated was a time when European economies were shifting from small, feudal groups to larger nation-states that were more concerned with centralized economic wealth and power.
Liberalism is not diametrically opposed to mercantilism, but it often disagrees with a centralized, state-run economy. Liberalism holds that individuals possess certain rights and freedoms, and that a state's power rests on each individual's freedom to create and maintain diverse economic activities (Cohen, 2008). Widespread belief in and economic practice of liberalism came after mercantilism, as the identity of the individual became more important than a nationalist, centralized nation-state identity. John Locke is a prime example of an early liberal philosopher, and the founding of America was also born out of a liberal ideal or mindset (Grieco and Ikenberry, 2002). Economically, liberalism was a step beyond mercantilism because it appealed to humans on a more individual, self-interested level.
Structuralism is the idea that human culture is a structure made up of different components. These components include customs, traditions, norms, and other elements that constitute a culture or heritage (Grieco and Ikenberry, 2002). Structuralism originated as a way to explain the modern world. It is used to help understand where cultures came from, and to analyze other economies', political entities', and states' behavior and functions relative to one another. Structuralism is a response to the need for order and explanation, and arose in conjunction with liberalism. Structuralists believe in the importance of strong traditions and cultural connections to a society's roots and origins. It is a way of looking at the world and making sense of the information contained within it. Society exists on a different level of reality than the individual and should be treated accordingly; society as a whole is not the same as the individual and does not carry the same rights and responsibilities (Cohen, 2008). Structuralism takes into account that a society is made up of many different components, and that those components form the structure of that society's institutions and political objectives.
The problems associated with global warming are affecting international political economy (IPE) in ways that were not foreseen only a few decades ago. Since global warming is now a widely accepted scientific theory, many countries recognize the need for a remedy to this problem. Global warming is unique because it potentially affects all nations and all peoples, and in turn all economies and political structures (Paterson, 1996). There exists an intense need to solve the problems associated with global warming, or at least begin to mitigate its effects, in order for the global community to continue to function smoothly and relatively peacefully.
The problems associated with global warming were brought on by nearly every industrialized nation in the world. Therefore, every nation has a stake in the solution. Whether or not these solutions are mutually beneficial is of great concern, since they affect everyone. Countries have consequently begun to develop policies regarding how they intend to handle this problem and the changes they will make accordingly. Some countries have pledged billions of dollars worth of technology and labor toward stopping global warming from severely affecting the globe, while others see the issue of global warming as an opportunity to benefit economically from its solutions (Pierson and Tankersley, 2009). Countries that possess an abundance of carbon dioxide-reducing resources — such as Brazil and Russia — recognize that they need to protect their rainforests and other vegetation from deforestation and desertification. By doing so, they are creating certain economic responsibilities and outcomes that could greatly impact their economies (Paterson, 1996). Russia's timber exports will likely decline as conservationists argue for reduced deforestation, but Russia also has the opportunity to benefit economically from large investments in alternative energy sources such as wind power, hydroelectric dam projects, and nuclear power plant infrastructure.
"Climate change reshaping IPE and international cooperation"
"Countries balance self-interest with shared climate obligations"
You’re 72% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.