BLOG #3

BLOG #3

“The idea that organizations or associations exist to further the interests of their members is hardly novel, nor peculiar to economics; it goes back at least to Aristotle, who wrote, “Men journey together with a view to particular advantage, and by way of providing some particular thing needed for the purposes of life, and similarly the political association seems to have come together originally, and to continue in existence, for the sake of the general advantages it brings.”

The idea behind globalization is to expand the interests and means to receive those interests (goods and services) because it’s an understanding that expanding the reach of those interest signifies greater standards of living and benefits for the actors involved. Trade liberalization as discussed in the class lecture is an invaluable aspect of the modern global political economy and its model of neoliberalism because by reducing tariffs and trade barriers countries are able to openly exchange goods and services that theoretically are mutually beneficial.

The problem with this idea, however, is that the notion that those involved are acting on the best interests of all parties involved and not solely on what is most beneficial to them regardless of the implications is a fallacy that much has had to do with the current trade wars and economic conflict that affects the capitalist world today. The Prisoner’s Dilemma theory illustrates it bests when it compares the possible outcomes of cooperating (or not) for the interests of all members who supposedly are cooperating for their collective interests. The example presented in regards to Japan and the United States shows a historical engagement of political and economic rubbing that in effect perpetrated the United States desired to rebuild international trade. From the ongoing conflict with China or more recently with Mexico, the idea has always being, from a rational choice theory perspective, that those members are always acting on the collective interest and most importantly on what is more rational but as we know that’s not the reality.

The quote that I chose basically allows us to see that very fact. From a historical standpoint, the idea that members of an organization are in a very group or association is because they share the same interests and are willing to pursue by whichever means the necessary to interests. Aristotle’s insertion in the quote speaks that members share a particular advantage and so they collectively act upon those shared ideals because they recognize the benefits it brings. Nonetheless, as Olson stated, that notion is not real because the decisions made by these actors are most likely alienated from collective interest and more towards self-interest. The global political economy of the modern world and globalization itself expects a rational and collective input in free trade and the mobilization of capital but actors don’t always act on those international accordance either because of political and economic uncertainly or simply because it doesn’t seem benefitial for their self-advances.