In regards to the debate on immigration, no one has pointed out that US government policy has directly caused an increase in Mexican immigration: in the interests of NAFTA, the US forced Mexico to remove Article 27 from their constitution. Article 274 had guaranteed that rural and indigenous Mexicans could never loose their land. Since NAFTA and the destruction of Mexican communal ownership (similar to what the US did domestically to Native Americans through the Dawes Act), Mexican farmers have been driven off their land (often by American agribusinesses) and have sought economic opportunities in Mexican and American cities. Maybe we shouldn’t have demanded the end of Article 27?
According to the neorealists, hegemony is necessary both in the political/security and is the economic realm? Why does the world economy need a hegemon?
Chris Julian: The world needs a hegemon because the hegemon makes the playing field fair and balanced. The hegemon ensures that everyone is playing fair and playing by the prescribed rules. According to Gilpin, the world is not self-sufficient and in order to maintain order in the international liberal economy a hegemon must act for the world community’s welfare; in essence being a leader and setting a good economic example that other states strive to follow. By the hegemon doing this, it ensures the world liberal economy is stable and survivable for the long term. Although a hegemon might be tempted to cheat, it understands that by >maintaining a fair playing field all players profit in the long run.
Tom Keefe: I think that, that part of Gilpin’s argumetn sounds nice, it was constructed out of too black and white of a world. Gilpin was writing in the late 1980s when the US was the “good guy” and the Soviets were the “evil empire.” His lavishing on the altuism of the hegemon is syptamatic of Cold War theorists who were too fearful of saying anything good about the Soviets and anything bad about the US.I believe that Gilpin argues more effectively why the word needs a hegemon in the economic realm when he draws concrete comparisons between economic megemony and political power: “the two hegemons in the modern world… have radiated their power largelyu through the exercise of economic power” (Kaufman, 480). Were the US and the UK NOT the economic hegemon, their political/military power would be undermine.
Look at the Israelis who, per capita, probably have the most military power, but they do not have the economic hegemony to bring their neighbors along. Israel would probably prefer “free-riders” of Syria, etc than adversaries. The free-riders of Canada and Mexico, while controversial and sometimes controversial with Canadian prescription drugs and Mexican maquiladora factories/labor, are better than having to militarily defend borders from militarily aggressive nation-states.