In the world today, almost everything you purchase, lest it be grown in your own backyard, travels thousands of miles to get to your doorstep. This is due to to economic globalization and economic integration, which has provided the world with a platform to interact peacefully. While conflict and war seem inevitable, economic integration and economic globalization which was first introduced by the Bretton Woods Conference in 1994 has changed the way nations communicate with each other. No longer are countries influenced by selfish goals, but inclusive ones that give nations better incentives not to attack.
This paper is to support that economic globalization and economic integration do in fact reduce the probability of conflict and war due to i) creating bonds through countries interests which causes them to protect rather than to instigate war, ii) embedded liberalism throughout the world, and iii) diversification of goods.
For the purpose of this paper, tension and conflict is expressed when countries are having difficulty with other countries. This paper expresses war on an international scale. Though problems arise intranationally due to a lack of economic integration and economic globalization, it is important to understand that those problems can then in turn, become global.
The Creation of Bonds
Once economically developed, it is far more beneficial to look after your trade partners than it is to turn a blind eye. In today’s economy, there are a variety of countries that contribute to the production of goods. Parts of a barbie dolls may be made in Taiwan, that then may be put together in China, before sitting on our shelf. ( In “Barbie and the World Economy,” Rone Tempest, 1992, p.2) It is far more costly to go to war when economically integrated, due to the inter-connectivity of nations economies. For example, China and the United States are heavily intertwined through products and services. If not for economic integration, the incentive to attack would be higher as hegemonic states strive for more power. However, once integrated, it then becomes not in their markets interest to attack each other due to the prosperity of their own economy.
In “China’s Path: Growing and Learning,” Wang Yizhou argues “No development would bring such devastating consequences to China as a military confrontation with another major power. This would halt China's economic modernization process.” (2010, p.12) The reason for causing war varies from country to country, but if all nations are globally connected through each others economy, conflict would cause an integral rift in the distribution of products that citizens rely on. You are not only going to war with that one country, but will all of its trading partners since they rely on them. It is a negative sum gain to attack a trading partner that provides so much to your own consumers.
One argument against economic integration is that the system relies too heavily on all the players in a supply...