Free Essay Example: Neoliberalism on the End of Korean War

Following the long Korean War that escalated in the 1950s, the Korean state started experiencing constraints in both economic and political arenas. Liberals who believed in free market rivalry saw the need for neoliberalism. International relations depicts neoliberalism as a theory that believes in the state's welfare. Neoliberalism was aimed at shaping the social market economy. Neoliberal thinkers maintain that the state must secure its own safety first before that of others. By the end of 1952, both North Korea and China were already in the wreck (Malkasian 72). On the other hand, classical neoliberalism accentuates in modeling policies and ideologies to defend unrestrictive economy and the rights of the individual against the government's excessive power. International relations schemes believe in denationalization, deregulation, and domination of the businesses. By the end of the war (1953), Southern Korea's only choice was to embrace deregulation and privatization of businesses in order to be revived both socially and economically (Kapur and Wagner 262).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

According to Kapur and Wagner neoliberalism require free based market culture, distinguished consumerism, and personal tolerance in both political and economic arenas (2). On the other hand, neoliberalism is feared to cause ungovernable individuals due to too much power on free markets, libertinism and ownership of businesses. It can even collapse all ties of cohesion and a move towards social anarchy and pessimism as (Kapur and Wagner 263) puts it. International relations hypothesis emphasize that neoliberalism and neorealism vie to clarify the political situation while constructivism puts emphasis on disapproving both liberalism and realism. For one to understand the political situation of the Korean, attention has to be paid to both neoliberal thinkers' views and be aware of national and social changes as accentuated by the constructivist. Neoliberal and realists tend to question about power: who has more power and how to ensure the safety of the state and its dominion globally. On the contrast, constructivism accentuate on social relations that aid in shaping the distinctiveness and interests. Given the current situation in both countries (South and North Korea) with the aim of bracing their economy and gain political stability, there is a great need to employ Neoliberalism ideologies with the help of realism in order to build concrete peace in Korean peninsula, and also pay attention to constructivism theory to facilitate more relations and allow neighboring countries to share community-built traits (Kapur and Wagner 262). Kapur and Wagner go further to explain that, it is through structural means that international systems' character force state to pursue security through modest power struggle (262). The character of the international stability is delineated mainly by great power at all times. On the other hand, critical theory is always aware of the significant perspectives on matters social world. It is mainly concerned with the origins of social, power, and customs and if there is a possibility that they might change. Critical theory is always doubtful of efforts to split the social world to numerous impartial areas the way structural theory does.

In international systems, neoliberalism and realism accept the view of a system under anarchy and the expectation of sensible choice. These systems contain the structure and collaborating elements. Thus, the Korean Peninsula's peace is attainable solitary when structural restraints establish a secure border between the neighboring countries and clear abilities dispersed in accord with those instructions (Lee 54). Korean Peninsula's peace may be attainable through an institutional method that can tighten tactical interdependence and custom coverage among the states. Major local powers find international businesses next to impossible mainly because of the historical aggression against Japan. Therefore, historic atrocity against Japan's prior conduct is the major interference to indorsing joint cooperation in the Korean region (Kapur and Wagner 241).

Neoliberals urge that the existing image surrounding the Korean peninsula signals that, states prefer comparative gain from joint security binds with the United States, to complete gains from joint cooperation. The major reason for this is "the fear that gains from joint cooperation are unlikely to be divided fairly" (Hasenclever et al. 96). He persists that there is also fear that their fundamental security welfare may be abused as far as multilateral management is concerned. In case the surrounding states believe that gains will be unfairly divided, then attaining multilateral security will be a great problem.

In conclusion, studies have supported that when it comes to state goals, neorealist explain it better than neoliberals. Neorealist accentuates on security subjects while neoliberals concentrate on the political economy. Neoliberals urge the growth of an economy in a particular region upsurges interdependence and urge joint cooperation. On the other hand, neorealist point out that the growth of an economy improves national power. Therefore, to reconstruct Korean peace would need the combination of both neoliberalism and neorealism theory, and also complement them with constructivism theory. This means that institutionalizing the two-sided binds that exist in the country through upsurge relations between North and South Korea would be neoliberal in shape, neorealism in core and constructivism in the course. The United States is also in the interest of peacebuilding in Korea through joint approaches (Hasenclever et al. 212).

Works Cited

Lee, Sang-soo. "Paradox of Neoliberalism: Arab Spring's Implications on North Korea." North Korean Review (2012): 53-66.

Malkasian, Carter. The Korean War. New York: Rosen Pub, 2009. Print.

Neoliberalism and global cinema: capital, culture, and Marxist critique. Place of publication not identified: Routledge, 2013. Print.

Hasenclever, Andreas, Peter Mayer, and Volker Rittberger. Theories of international regimes. Cambridge New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Print