Realists have three bases that explain the connection between riches and power, warfare, and governments. One of the bases states that the growth of a national income and productive capability influences power while financial objectives complement political objectives. In the past, liberals and realists shared similar thoughts that riches and power complemented political goals. However, today realists believe that power is sourced from capacity and capacity from a nation’s income.
We will write a custom Essay on Realistic Expectations of Great Powers in the Pacific specifically for you
301 certified writers online
Secondly, realists claim that though governments favor economic growth, governments must expect war prospects. Therefore, the government should anticipate war when making policies. However, this consideration might prevent governments from enacting policies that would boost economic growth for fear of war.
Thirdly, realists also differ in their belief that governments are separate entities that can prosecute their goals. However, liberals differ concerning the scope and impact of that sovereignty.
Governments will opt not to unite given the expectations of war, lest enemies become powerful since national income influences power. One obstacle to collaboration is whether specialization in the global market would limit the economic growth of a country. Because of security issues, governments might divert from good economic strategies.
Realism has different views concerning absolute and relative gains. The quest for relative gains is not what differentiates realism, but the motive behind the quest: the prevalence of lawlessness and security issues. Liberals accept the prospect of disputes in sharing relative gains. Realists differ not on disputes over relative gains but sharper disputes over relative gains like collaborators abandoning profitable deals.
The hegemonic stability thesis is a paradigm that has been used to understand monetary relations. However, various issues are raised concerning its interpretation. First, it is now evident that Britain was not a monetary superpower in the 19th century as this theory had anticipated. Second, recent studies on monetary policies have opposed that the great depression was not caused by the lack of a political system.
Realists oppose the possibility of global cooperation and especially monetary cooperation. Obstacles to such cooperation include monetary systems, macroeconomic exteriorities, and monetary allegiances. Therefore, even if governments have monetary accords, those accords are delicate. States participate in repulsive deeds to ensure global monetary stability.
The fundamental issues in America-Japan monetary connections have prevailed since the start of the cold war. In most cases, monetary connections have a particular pattern, where an agreement is usually made and then it crumbles after some time.
Monetary disputes during the cold war were restricted by the U.S. objective of promoting the Japanese economy to offset the Soviet Union.
Market forces sabotage the government’s production capability, and private entities may be involved in actions that deviate from the policies of a state and this may affect favored policies. Realists believe that governments will find these problems unbearable, and thus create options to eliminate them.
Concerning trade, though realists state varying motivations for government conduct, there are no specific realist anticipations in the trade between America and Japan and between America and China.
Trade relations are not the best in analyzing behavioral anticipations because trade reduces its value with time and realistic anticipations of trade are usually leaned from other theories.