Critics of International Economic Liberalism and Economic Globalization 353economic liberals admit, but certainly an end to the expectation that individuals will
act rationally and that markets will always be stable, efficient, and eventually recover
at a higher level. Mercantilists and economic realists might applaud the return to the
state- level policies protecting their own citizens and the rise of state- controlled enter-
prises. Radicals recognize that delivering the hatchet to economic globalization would
be necessary to achieve their goals of a more just and equitable international economic
system. Social constructivists regard the contestation over ideas about the economy as
an ever- evolving pro cess.
Critics of International Economic
Liberalism and Economic Globalization
The triumph of economic liberalism in the twenty- first century has not been without its
critics. Th ese include both traditional critics of the theory of economic liberalism and
critics of par tic u lar policies, most notably of the international financial institutions.
As they did in the seventeenth and eigh teenth centuries, old- style mercantilists, with
their interpretation of economic nationalism, argue that economic policy should be
subservient to the state and its interests; for them, politics determines economics. This
mercantilist thinking dominated explanations of the economic success of Japan, as well
as that of the newly industrializing countries of East Asia during the 1960s and 1970s,
as discussed earlier. Those states used their power to stimulate industrial growth.
Those governments could then harness the power of the MNCs in the state’s interest.
Setting national economic and po liti cal objectives above international economic and
po liti cal objectives, statists see MNCs as economic actors to be controlled. They sug-
gest imposing national controls on MNCs, including denying market entry to some of
them, using the power of taxation to control repatriation of profits, and imposing cur-
rency controls. Mercantilists, like realists, believe that the international system is
dominated by competition among states for power. States will take any action neces-
sary to survive, protecting their self- interests.
Radical theorists have also been critical of the liberal economic path, just as they
were in the nineteenth century. Development has not occurred, and for de pen dency
theorists particularly, MNCs and their facilitators are the culprit; they exploit the
resources of the poor, and they perpetuate the dominance of the North and the de pen-
dency of the South. This view is taken by some in the “ Behind the Headlines” study of
the new canal proj ect in Nicaragua, courtesy of Chinese capital.
So whereas economic liberals value the interdependencies that MNCs create, radi-
cals see them as instruments of de pen dency, exploitation, and even imperialism. Deci-
sions made in the economic and financial centers of the world— Tokyo, London, New
York, Seoul— create an inherently unequal and unfair international economic system.