hi everyone just wondering if anyone can help me out with this question

im doing global politics at uni and just got some questions if anyone can help me with them?

how does neo liberalism build on classical liberalism ?

in wht ways do 'non state actors' represent a challenge to the state system?

what is the best explanation for the persistence of the income and power gulf between the 'global north' and the global south' ?

can any help me with any of these questions please !!

thank you

I'd suggest a homework help site, not a political discussion forum.

You are totally wrong there Ice. Those are excellent questions. Not only are those questions excellent fuel for political discussion on exactly the political topics she mentions, but we definitely want the brightest and the best from the worlds universities to be participating on this site. If this site is useful to not only recreational political discussion, but also academic political science, then that will increase the reputation, quality and content of this site.

I will reply to those questions when I have more time later tonite.


WEB

__________________
Formerly W.E.B. Du Bois (you can still call me "WEB")

Current Diplomacy thread
WEB Music Playlist
Protest Animal Cruelty

Neo-liberalism, like Classical Liberalism, actually has several meanings, and I'm not sure quite which one you mean, but the most frequent usages are the politico-economic ideologies. Classical Liberalism in this sense was all about personal liberty and a lack of government intervention and interference, including both social and economic liberty. Neo-liberalism is about free trade and free markets, both considered extremely important by classical liberalism. The difference is that Neo-liberalism is more finely focused on the economic side of liberty, as opposed to the social side, whereas Classical Liberalism was very much about both.

Non-state actors' challenge to the state system vary a lot. Some non-state actors, such as many nationalist groups, want to change the particular set of states which we have (for example, ETA wants to add a Basque state, while the IRA wants to move Ulster from being part of the UK to being part of the Republic of Ireland) but they are not against the system itself.
Other non-state actors may want to reduce the role of states, by empowering international institutions. For example, Amnesty International proposes international laws that reduce state's own powers to, for example, torture their citizens, and so degrade the state system by reducing sovereignty.

As to the third issue, that's something very contraversial, to which you will no doubt gain a huge number of contradictory answers. Personally, I believe the income difference is mostly due to history and geography, but partly due to Western control of the IMF and World Bank, which allow Western countries (and Japan) to keep colossal subsidies and trade barriers to outside goods while forcing poor countries, many of whom are in the South (though this is coincidence: countries are not poor simply because they are in the South), to remove all tariffs and duties and privatise all their industries and services even if they are not ready for it.

The power difference is, I believe, purely due to historical reasons.

__________________
... I am surprised at your insolence in writing to me at all. You know, as I know, that I bought this constituency... may God's curse light upon you and may it make your women as open and as free to the excise officers as your wives and daughters have always been to me while I have represented your scoundrel corporation.
I have the honour to be... your obliged humble servant, Anthony Henley
- MPs reply to constituent, mid 1700s

Just want to mention one thing. Ice is correct insofar as it is a good idea for anyone who is doing research for a political science class to actually go to a library, talk to professors etc and then if they want to IN ADDITION, they should also feel free to open threads about poli sci questions, as there are a few people on this forum who have taken a lot of poli sci classes.


WEB

__________________
Formerly W.E.B. Du Bois (you can still call me "WEB")

Current Diplomacy thread
WEB Music Playlist
Protest Animal Cruelty

This question I cannot answer with total confidence. However, I have read about:

Neo-liberalism and Neo-realism, and I have read some realism (Machiavelli's the Prince) but I am not aware of "Liberalism" (in the poli sci, international relations meaning).

I would only ASSUME that liberalism does not contain some of the realist components that neo-liberalism does. I've read a lot of the debates between Keohane and Waltz, and from what I gather, neo-liberalism shares many of the assumptions of neo-realism, namely that states are self-interested, the behavior of states are governed by the balance of power (i.e. unipolarity, bipolarity and multipolarity.) and lastly states are unitary actors, in other words the heads of state act in the best interests of the state and not in the best interests of merely one class within the country he represents. I believe it is those three assumptions that is the "neo" part in neo-liberalism.

This is an enormous question and requires a thread in and of itself to handle it. I think that you really have to start a thread question for this since there are so many "non-state actors". We are talking about the WTO, EU, other regional associations like ASEAN, Mercusor, we are also talking about multi-national companies, as well as NGO's and even terrorists. This is an extremely broad question, too broad to just answer in passing.

Another extremely broad question. People write books on questions that are narrower in scope than these. I suggest you try to start a thread topic on each question. Also, maybe you should offer your own thoughts on the subject as well. It wouldn't be right to just copy and paste whatever answers you get from this site into whatever paper you might be writing.

To answer your question briefly though, I will say that it is the difference in (1) economic power and (2) political organization between states of the North and the South that causes the persistence of disparity between them.


WEB

__________________
Formerly W.E.B. Du Bois (you can still call me "WEB")

Current Diplomacy thread
WEB Music Playlist
Protest Animal Cruelty

From what I understand, though it's about 8 months since I looked at this so I might be remembering wrong, in International Relations, Neo-Liberalism is almost the same as Neo-Realism, the only difference being that Neo-Liberals believe that states will work multilaterally if they believe it to be in their own interests, whereas Neo-Realists believe that States will cheat and abandon multilateral relations when necessary.

__________________
... I am surprised at your insolence in writing to me at all. You know, as I know, that I bought this constituency... may God's curse light upon you and may it make your women as open and as free to the excise officers as your wives and daughters have always been to me while I have represented your scoundrel corporation.
I have the honour to be... your obliged humble servant, Anthony Henley
- MPs reply to constituent, mid 1700s

Pretty close, IMO. I think the main difference comes in terms of agreements and cooperation. In the real world, I think that means:

* Arms limitations
* Peace treaties
* International Trade

Neo-liberals say this is possible, neo-realists do not. Neo-realists are ultimately wrong.


WEB

__________________
Formerly W.E.B. Du Bois (you can still call me "WEB")

Current Diplomacy thread
WEB Music Playlist
Protest Animal Cruelty

neoconservatives used to be liberals under JFKs admin Robert Kennedy's ideals....

Really? Explain that to me.

wow you guys a re a HUGE HELP omg i never thought this site would be so kewl.. thanks guys you have seriously been a help thnks you