Summary and Analysis of “A World Gone Wrong”

It is of general human opinion that we live in a world gone wrong. An in-depth look into this mood arrives at various conclusions and the need to explore some ways through which the world could change and the impact these changes would have.

The context of capitalism was provided for by the sovereign state, and it in turn, got the impetus to prosper. Through the Westfailure system, a pun for the Westphalia system, Susan Strange makes clear the point that the market economy has extended itself so much into the world that this mutually beneficial relationship has withered. A particular concern being that neither the government nor the institutions intended for monetary management can control the global financial system.

It is argued that if the existing world order cannot handle the strains and challenges brought forth by globalization then the Westphalia system has come to be since the nation states have failed to have a system in place that can curb global financial market crisis. Economists simply do not understand how the global political economy works (Brown, 1)

Sovereign states, in the race to achieve great economic growth, overlook the consequences of degrading the environment. Environmental degradation leads to loss of scarce non-renewable resources and global warming. The States have also proved incapable of keeping the situation from getting worse in some areas.

Contrary to human welfare, humanitarianism has hit rock bottom. The prevailing economic order has increased global inequality. People who are disadvantaged are left in a poor state while in "successful" states, inequalities continue to grow worse.

Marxists and socialists favored an industrial society one that was not based on market forces or profit maximization motive. Public utilities and public concern would be under the ownership of the general public ownership.

Globalization could yield important benefits if it is addressed primarily in the context of rights and justice. This point to the relation between various states with regard to the products and services they outsource. However, the opposition to globalization has had southern states suspicious as to why measures that would seemingly benefit the south are deemed undesirable.

Various arguments arise. First argument is that it is impossible to make objective market forces bend to conscious human control. This is true and leaves the system of national states at the mercy of market forces. It is bound to roll with the prevailing economic conditions and can only adjust, but not change them.

Chris Brown suggests that the poor will benefit from free trade. This is true in the short-run since poorer states have a negative balance of payment and will benefit as the money they spend on imports will be less. However, the revenue they so much depend on in exports will be forgone, and this will only worsen the situation. Free trade will have a see-saw effect and thus it cannot be directly pointed out that it will benefit the poor.

It has been suggested that the lack of capital for development is the major problem facing less developed countries. Consequently, such capital can only be sourced from private capital markets. This claim may be true, but it is subject to criticism in that less developed countries could find other sources of capital. This would be without necessarily putting themselves at the mercy of private capital markets that would bend terms to their total advantage.

In summary, whether or not the Westphalia system will run its course in time cannot be ascertained. In the event that it does, then it will without a doubt be an obstacle to the realization of a just and functioning world.