Essay: The Impact of Neoliberalism on International Political Economy

This essay provides an in-depth analysis of international political economy, with a specific focus on the influence of neoliberalism. The introduction challenges the ideologies promoting neoliberalism, presenting scientific evidence to support the arguments. The main body explores the core concepts of international political economy, including trade, finance, and the role of multinational corporations. It delves into how neoliberal policies have fostered socioeconomic inequality both domestically and internationally. The essay further critiques the misuse of the term "liberalism" and defines the key tenets of neoliberal foreign policy, such as moral egalitarianism, the importance of institutions, and consequentialist ethics. It concludes by arguing that a coherent neoliberal foreign policy must be humanitarian, cooperative, and technocratic. The essay also examines the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on neoliberalism and its potential consequences, while referencing relevant academic sources.

International
policy

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY..................................................................................................................................3
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................6

INTRODUCTION
This essay calls into question each of the theses that promote such ideology, providing scientific
evidence to back them up. The author further discusses how the implementation of these
economic reforms has resulted in a significant increase in socioeconomic inequality both within
and across countries (Bacevic, 2019). The ruling classes in both advanced economies have
formed internationally class relationships that are largely vital to the success of neo - liberalism
as a result of these reforms.
MAIN BODY
International political economy centers on the nature of complex activity that cross national
boundaries, such as trade flows, exports and imports, isolationism, taxes, non-type walls,
manufacturing, the way multinational companies work across country boundaries, and finance;
to finance, the way money and resources will transcends national boundaries, as well as labor
and movement. Those two last points haven't really been covered in depth by international
political economy (Bohle and Greskovits, 2019). As a result, international political economy
studies the relationship between economics and politics in particular countries as well as the
international community as a whole. It investigates the domestic origins of international
economic power (Brown, 2019). As a result, international political economy studies the
relationship between economics and politics in particular countries as well as the international
community as a whole. It examines the domestic origins of foreign economic policy, such as
whether a given state in a given international system pursues transparency, closure,
protectionism, liberalization, and so on, and who benefits and who loses from those policies.
That is where international economic policy originates from within the country. In addition, there
is a global web of domestic political economies.
Obviously, since international political economy is mostly concerned with international
economics, but it still draws on economic theory or other ideas, and there are several different
patterns in international political economy. Trends focused on neoclassical or conventional
economic models are present. There are also Marxist and institutionalist world political economy
views that are focused on institutionalized economics rather than neoclassical economics. The
premise is that theorists of international political economy aim to use economic theory to
develop models that can forecast how political actors behave, their interests, and policies, among

other things (Cosgrove and Karter, (2018)). The premise is that theorists of international
political economy aim to use economic theory to develop models that can forecast how political
actors behave, their interests, and policies, among other things. Economic past is also seen in
international political economy. There's still a lot of it that builds on economic historians'
experience, mainly from the time before WWII. Since the major focus areas are economic
process results and strategies, the term "economy" is used. Neoliberalism is the prevalent
philosophy that pervades many regimes of advanced and developing countries, as well as
multinational organizations such as the United Nations, the Bank For International settlements,
the Asia - Pacific economic cooperation, and many United Nations research institutes, including
the World Health Organization. This philosophy asserts that the elimination in government
interference in economic and social affairs, as well as the globalization of labour and financial
markets, as well as trade and acquisitions, have unlocked global capitalism immense capacity to
usher in a new age of global social well-being. Every one of the theses in this article is
challenged in this issue (Della Porta, (2017)). There may be no word in contemporary political
culture that is more misused than "liberalism." The anti-capitalist left embraced the concept in
the 1930s and changed its definition to the polar opposite of what it meant in the nineteenth
century. In much of the world, however, liberalism has retained its right sense, and the term
"liberalism" still refers to the philosophy of open trade and free economies in Spanish-speaking
countries, for example. Just right-wingers in the United States continue to use the word as a
derogatory term to describe the anti-capitalist left. Except in the United States, where the left has
eschewed the word for the development of country. In order to understand what such a strategy
may entail, one must first describe neoliberalism's underlying tenets — its key frame animation
principles and priorities — before refashioning those assumptions into a coherent series of
foreign policy strategies. If these two factors are incompatible, it is impossible to call the
international policy proposal developed "neoliberal" in any substantive sense. To begin, foreign
policy goals must be consistent with the concept of moral egalitarianism, which holds that all
individuals are born equally or have equal positive worth (Hooley, Sultana and Thomsen, (Eds.).
(2017)). This concept emphasizes the importance of the well-being of citizens from other
countries, cultures, and religions in our spiritual estimates. The legislative agenda must've been
consistent with the assumption that formal structures are essential for organizing the inherently
self-interested existence of humans and, by extension, nation-states. This argument is related to

the previous one about dictatorship, but I think it goes further. The animating assumption of all
constitution philosophies is that institutions are the privileged means by which independent and
self-interested people can obtain benefits beyond their own efforts. As a result, the organization
is praised for influence the environment logical considerations by (dis)incentives that turn the
socially fractured. Third, neoliberal foreign policy must follow a consequentialist ethic, which
holds that results are more essential than procedures. This is what leads to neoliberalism's
pragmatic and technocratic tendencies. If the most successful way to achieve gains for humanity
is to delegate all decision-making to professionals, that's good as long as the outcomes are
positive — with "positive" described as respecting human rights and reducing human suffering.
A neoliberal foreign policy will be predominantly technocratic and results-oriented as a result of
this. It will trust experts to formulate evidence-based strategies aimed at advancing global
welfare, upholding liberal ideals, and safeguarding indigenous peoples. While it is too soon to
predict if economic controversies around neoliberalism would become less relevant to the
ideology as a whole in the immediate future, it is apparent that a coherent view of a
quintessentially neoliberal foreign policy is indeed feasible and desirable. Furthermore, the
movement would be best positioned to fight about what is necessary — make the planet a better
place — if it embraces the basic values of fairness without boundaries, moral freedom,
pragmatism, and faith in institutions. When taken together, these various tenets form an
intriguing frame, demonstrating that a coherent neoliberal foreign policy theory must be
humanitarian, cooperative, interventionist, institution-centric, technocratic, and pragmatic. It also
differs from the libertarian and nationalist schools of foreign policy in terms of nature and aims,
which call for full abstention and amoral self-interest, respectively. Although it is too early to
predict that neoliberal economic discussions would become less relevant to the coalition as a
whole in the immediate future, it is apparent that a coherent image of a quintessentially
neoliberal foreign policy is feasible. Economic recession undermined traditional regimes and
made national leaders amenable to a new system of thought, transforming neoliberalism from a
despised collection of cultural beliefs into a full-fledged hegemonic power. Economic strains
began to emerge in the mid-1960s, but the source of a definitive end to the postwar era's boom
came in 1973, when the OPEC9 countries cut production, resulting in a fivefold rise in oil prices.
Since the coronavirus and its political adversaries are holding the planet hostage, it's
important to examine the (geo)political and economic background under which the pandemic has

arisen. Many studies point to neo - liberalism as the culprit, claiming that it is to blame for the
dismantling but marketization of public utilities like hospitals, for which we'll be footing the
taxes. The virus illustrates the failure of neoliberal capitalism, which relies on multinational
manufacturing networks of western companies and Chinese factories to spread across the world.
Unfortunately, neoliberalism is in danger yet again, and it could be fatal. The coronavirus
provides an opportunity to improve the environment, not least by undoing decades of
neoliberalization and rewarding critical careers such as health care and education. Unfortunately,
as Naomi Klein's 'The Shock Doctrine' explains, emergencies provide enough space for the
current order to achieve goals that would be unthinkable under regular days. Whereas previous
phases of neoliberalization were carried out in a variety of ways by centrist parties, with the
middle right committing to liberal values in retaliation for center-left aid for political
neoliberalization, a strong alliance here between center and far right had emerged since 2016,
with the latter becoming prominent as core parties such as the US Conservatives and UK
Conservatism have steered the course. Despite the fact that center-right factions helped to create
the capitalist world order, they have since reinvented themselves as populist opponents to the
‘globalist' order. Neo-illiberalism is spreading like a plague, with western capitalist democracies
gradually resembling illiberal democracies and (competitive) authoritarian regimes abroad.
Where illiberalizing regimes in Hungary and Poland are infecting the capitalist European Union
(EU) as a whole, neo-illiberalism is a profoundly global phenomenon, thanks in part to the
European Peoples Party's (EPP) center-right electoral cover.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Bacevic, J. (2019). Knowing neoliberalism. Social Epistemology, 33(4), 380-392.
Bohle, D., & Greskovits, B. (2019). Politicising embedded neoliberalism: continuity and change
in Hungary’s development model. West European Politics, 42(5), 1069-1093.
Brown, W., 2019. In the ruins of neoliberalism: the rise of antidemocratic politics in the West.
Columbia University Press.
Cosgrove, L., & Karter, J. M. (2018). The poison in the cure: Neoliberalism and contemporary
movements in mental health. Theory & Psychology, 28(5), 669-683.
Della Porta, D. (2017). Late neoliberalism and its discontents in the economic crisis. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Hooley, T., Sultana, R., & Thomsen, R. (Eds.). (2017). Career guidance for social justice:
Contesting neoliberalism (Vol. 16). Routledge.
Huehls, M., & Smith, R. G. (Eds.). (2017). Neoliberalism and contemporary literary culture.
JHU Press.
Kashwan, P., MacLean, L. M., & García-López, G. A. (2019). Rethinking power and institutions
in the shadows of neoliberalism:(An introduction to a special issue of World
Development). World Development, 120, 133-146.
Peck, J., & Theodore, N. (2019). Still neoliberalism?. South Atlantic Quarterly, 118(2), 245-265.
Peck, J., Brenner, N. and Theodore, N., 2018. Actually existing neoliberalism. The Sage
handbook of neoliberalism, 1, pp.3-15.
Van Reenen, J., 2018. Increasing differences between firms: Market power and the macro-
economy.
.
Online
Neo liberalism. 2019.[Online]. Available through: https://mises.org/wire/whats-difference-
between-liberalism-and-neoliberalism