The idea for this work came during the lecture of Ikenberry “The end of liberal international order?” (2018) and Mearsheimer “Bound to Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Liberal International Order” (2019). Both scientists mention inequality as a threat to liberal democracy and the Liberal International Order (LIO) but do not elaborate on this point. The subject of inequality is not a pure political theme. It is more an economic theme that became a political theme. The research question of this draft is “Why does inequality put pressure on the Liberal International Order?”. The assumption is that the range of inequality is a political subject, which was handled differently over the last 70 decades.
Table of Contents
Introduction
1. With the glasses of liberal theory
2. The Liberal International Order (LIO)
3. Why inequality matters
3.1 The elite decides the endowment of the welfare state
3.2 The rate of inequality is a decision
3.3 Different states, different inequality
Conclusion
Research Objectives and Topics
This work examines the correlation between economic inequality and the stability of the Liberal International Order (LIO). It investigates how political decisions regarding welfare states and income distribution impact the integrity of the international system, specifically focusing on the shift from the Keynesian era to the neoliberal era and its consequences for democratic governance.
- The relationship between economic inequality and political power.
- The impact of elite decision-making on welfare state endowments.
- Comparative analysis of inequality in the U.S., France, Sweden, and Poland.
- The influence of national inequality trends on international order stability.
- The role of targeted spending in democratic systems.
Excerpt from the Book
3.1 The elite decides the endowment of the welfare state
The framing process of political issues is an important tool for effectively asserting one's preferences. The framing process in liberal democracies is in the hand of the media, which is also dependent on the capitalist elite because of advertising or ownership (Heise and Khan 2018, 229). So liberal democracy “has a strong tendency to favour minority preferences which are shaped by the media or capitalist elite” (Heise and Khan 2018, 229). The common will is manufactured by the elite and the media the same way as consumption patterns are created by advertisement and applied psychology, rather than being the objective representations of free and self-determined consumers (Schumpeter Aug. 2006, 263). For Heise and Khan the faith in the decision-making process will be undermined if the elite does not attempt to camouflage its interests as ‘common good’ or if the outcome is so appalling that the process which creates such an outcome is contested” (Heise and Khan 2018, 228–230). Public questions were treated as matters of technical expertise, with no alternative to handle them. It became a technical affair instead of a democratic decision (Sandel 2020, 20). The neoliberal Thatcherism was accompanied by the TINA rhetoric. TINA stands for “There is no alternative” and is a type of economic populism that terminates any debate (Séville 2017, 169–170). Sandel noted that the absence of public debate does not mean that no policies are being decided. It simply means they are being decided out of public view and often captured by the interests of the economic well-off elite (Sandel 2020, 29). This refers to a minimum of two of the three conditions Moravcsik noted, under which conflict is likely: Conflict over scarce material goods and inequalities in political power (Moravcsik 1997, 517).
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Provides the context of the decline of liberal democracy and defines the research question regarding the pressure inequality exerts on the LIO.
1. With the glasses of liberal theory: Applies the liberal theory of Andrew Moravcsik to explain how societal interests and political power dynamics influence state behavior.
2. The Liberal International Order (LIO): Defines the LIO as a post-Cold War construct and discusses its essential components, institutions, and challenges.
3. Why inequality matters: Connects economic inequality with the political erosion of the welfare state and the rise of neoliberal policies.
3.1 The elite decides the endowment of the welfare state: Discusses how political framing and elite influence can distort democratic decision-making processes.
3.2 The rate of inequality is a decision: Argues that inequality levels are not natural occurrences but outcomes of specific political and economic choices, such as the meritocratic minimal state.
3.3 Different states, different inequality: Analyzes specific national trajectories—the U.S., France, Sweden, and Poland—to demonstrate varying impacts of policy choices on inequality.
Conclusion: Summarizes the threats posed by inequality to the LIO and suggests the need for balanced distributive policies to maintain order stability.
Keywords
Liberal International Order, Inequality, Welfare State, Neoliberalism, Political Power, Redistribution, Meritocratic Elite, Globalization, Democratic Governance, Wage Bargaining, Targeted Spending, Economic Policy, Comparative Politics, International Institutions, Social Stability.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this research?
The paper fundamentally examines why and how increasing economic inequality threatens the stability and future of the Liberal International Order (LIO).
What are the primary themes covered in the text?
The core themes include the intersection of economics and politics, the degradation of the welfare state under neoliberalism, and how domestic social conflicts undermine international cooperation.
What is the main research question of the thesis?
The research is guided by the question: “Why does inequality put pressure on the Liberal International Order?”
Which scientific framework does the author apply?
The author primarily utilizes the liberal theory of international relations as formulated by Andrew Moravcsik to interpret how state preferences are formed by domestic societal groups.
What does the main body of the work analyze?
The main body analyzes the historical transition from the Keynesian welfare state to neoliberalism, the role of elite framing, and provides a comparative study of inequality in the U.S., France, Sweden, and Poland.
Which key terms describe this work?
Important terms include Liberal International Order, inequality, welfare state, neoliberalism, and political decision-making.
How does the author define the "meritocratic minimal state"?
It is defined as a state model where redistribution is limited to the point where the marginal utility of a welfare program equals its marginal cost, often favored by the meritocratic elite to minimize their own economic concessions.
What role does Poland play in the analysis?
Poland is presented as a case study for a transition state, demonstrating how liberalization and targeted spending practices can impact income distribution and contribute to domestic political polarization.
Why is the "TINA" rhetoric relevant to the author's argument?
The "There is no alternative" rhetoric is used to illustrate how neoliberal politics effectively terminated democratic debate, moving key economic decisions out of the public sphere and into the hands of the elite.
What conclusion does the author draw about the future of the LIO?
The author concludes that the LIO is under significant stress due to unchecked inequality and domestic distributional conflicts, suggesting that repairing the order requires a return to effective pro-market strategies and robust redistributive social policies.
- Quote paper
- Martin Birkner (Author), 2021, The Liberal International Order under pressure. Why inequality matters, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1140734
