Disagreement between Mercantilism/Realism, Liberalism, and Historical Structuralism

INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY
(Name)
(Course name)
(Date of Submission)
The International Political Economy (IPE) discipline is a relatively new entry in International Relations (IR) canon. IPE scholars only began associating themselves with the discipline during the 1970s when several political scientists defined IPE as a separate field of study separate from economics. IPE deals with issues arising from or impacted by international politics, economics, foreign trade policy, social systems, and societal groups. Therefore, it is the study of the politics of international economic relations, mainly how the economic relationships affect the ability of states to maintain freedom of policy. On the whole, IPE refers to the study of the relationship between the economic and political sphere entailing both state and non-state actors on the global and national levels. The conventional view splits IPE into three primary paradigms: mercantilism/realism, liberalism, and historical structuralism. This essay will identify and explain the focal points of disagreement between the three traditional perspectives before deciding and explaining which approach, if any, is most persuasive.[André C. Drainville, “International Political Economy in the Age of Open Marxism,” Review of International Political Economy 1, no. 1 (1994): 105–32, /stable/4177092.]
IPE Perspectives
Mercantilism is the oldest IPE perspective and is most closely tied to political science, particularly the political philosophy of realism. The primary focus of mercantilism is that the state should create wealth and power to protect its sovereignty and national interests in all its diverse forms, especially economically. Reflecting on the principle tenets of nationalism, mercantilism justifies state intervention to ensure economic development, and most IPE issues are mainly viewed in terms of national interest. Liberalism is the second IPE perspective and is most closely related to the market systems studied by economists. The liberal view advocates for secret powers in place of public power. It pushes for markets free from government restrictions or regulation and opposes most state restrictions on free global markets. Liberalists believe that states or individuals can avoid conflicts of interest without state control and through interdependence and cooperation to maximize economic interests.[Robert H Jackson, Georg Sørensen, and Jørgen Møller, Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches (Oxford; New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2007).]
On the other hand, historical structuralism is most closely linked with the Marxist analysis methods sociologists apply. It views IPE issues in terms of how classes and class interests shape dominant economic structures, mainly how private power often benefits elites at the expense of the larger public. The perspective examines class relations and patterns of exploitation, over and above, how public power can prevent innate tendencies by governments to benefit the dominant class at the expense of the proletariat.
Each of the three perspectives varies in examining international politics, global economics, social systems, and societal groups. For instance, while mercantilism focuses on the state as the central actor and devotes less attention to domestic issues, liberalism concentrates on domestic societal pressures on the state and pushes for less government interference. On the other hand, historical structuralism perceives the government as an instrument used by the dominant capitalist class to exploit the proletariat. Simultaneously, while mercantilists and liberals accept capitalism as an essential economic system, historical materialists consider capitalism an exploitative system that ought to be replaced by socialism. Both mercantilists and historical materialists see the state as somewhat independent. However, while the former sees the state's primary function as protecting its sovereignty and furthering the national interest independently of the economic welfares of any societal group, the latter views the state as a control tool used by the bourgeoisie.[Benjamin Selwyn, “Twenty-First-Century International Political Economy: A Class-Relational Perspective,” citeseerx.ist.psu.edu, 2014, https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.664.6072&rep=rep1&type=pdf.]
Moreover, while liberals and historical materialists agree that technological developments help facilitate globalization, liberals view this technological progress as a consequence of human aspirations for economic progress. In contrast, historical materialists view them as resulting from historically particular consequences of capital development. These focal points of disagreement between the three traditional perspectives result in different approaches to the role of domestic actors, the nature and aim of global economic relations, the association between economics and politics, and the causes and implications of globalization. For instance, mercantilism views global economic relations as a zero-sum game where one state gains economic power at the expense. At the same time, liberalism perceives international economic relations as a variable-sum game where states may gain or lose economic power together. The reason for this variance in perception relates to the former's focus on the importance of states solidifying their power by establishing economic primacy over other states to protect their independence and interests.[Theodore H Cohn, Global Political Economy: Theory and Practice (Boston: Pearson, 2010).]
Mercantilists hold that states should take all essential measures to accumulate as much economic power as possible because the gains determine relative power positions, which is of primary importance. On the other hand, liberals hold a less adversarial stance. Rather than focusing on a state's relative gains or power position vis-à-vis other states, they are more interested in absolute gains. Conversely, historical materialism only supports states protecting their sovereignty and furthering their national interests as long as they advocate for the poor and less powerful. Historical materialists oppose international economic relations under the present capitalist system because it concen...