Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

This post is a culmination of thoughts I’ve been having for a reasonable period of time now – more or less since my first pregnancy over three years ago.  It is not an academic essay, and is based in my own personal reflection.  However, I will refer to theory and statistics to illustrate my point.

I often hear young, local women personalities, and even my close women friends, complaining about the “societal pressure” they feel to commit to having children one day.  This I find entirely baffling.  I never considered this to be a pressure put upon me at any point in my life, certainly not through public schooling, peer pressure, media exposure or even family.  Media images of lean, sexy, capable career women flooded my consciousness throughout my entire teenagehood.  I grew up thinking that that is simply what a woman is, and what a woman should be.  Motherhood was something that wasn’t even part of that picture – that comes later, right, when you’re like, 40?  When you no longer look hot and intimidating in a pencil skirt and designer blazer?  I understand that my experience is not necessarily connected to that of anyone else; but I witness my millenial social group acting in ways that certainly do not imply a sense of external pressure regarding having children.  Generally they are in no hurry to pin down a career path (and nor should they be), no hurry to save any money unless aiming to put down a house deposit or travel, no hurry to nab a rich banker and get married ASAP.  They spend money on brunch, clothing, theatre performances, concerts, makeup, and an ever-expanding array of ‘things’.  This existence is their entire world, which is to say that they usually have intellectual pursuits which they envision themselves contributing through one day, for their own career satisfaction; may be involved in a media project which involves their own voices contributing to larger issues (like blogs!); but, almost categorically, are not involved in service or community initiatives purely because selfless submission to societal benefit is a value that still exists among our generation.  So where is this perceived pressure coming from?  Parents?  Probably not at the age of 23 or 24.  I’ll reiterate that I don’t want to discredit this feeling without anyone identifying to me how exactly this pressure manifests. But I do consider it within my rights to develop a theory based on my own observation.

In my teenage years, I was not family-oriented in the slightest.  It certainly wasn’t cool in my rather ephemeral social group.  We were liberated, risk-taking young women who felt that the nuclear family was a prison that the religious girls were destined to be relegated to, while the rest of us would go on to enjoy the finer things in life, like salaries and complete self-absorption.  I engaged in a good deal of risky behaviour.  I believe I was outspoken at times about motherhood and children, and how injurious both were to the female identity and society in general. I did not have any siblings or a close extended family, and had never changed a baby in my life before I had my own at 21.

When I discussed my pregnancy with acquaintances and workmates, I quickly learned that when they had claimed they were ‘pro-choice’ in earlier conversations, they really meant they were ‘pro-abortion’.  In the sense that when confronted with an actual pregnant person of their own age who didn’t fit the pity-worthy state-house upbringing mold, they became angry and aggressive. This, I’ll add, was a problem exclusively encountered with women – men, even when younger than me, had nothing but support or indifference to dish out.  Young women would stare, be silent, snap at me. I found this very sinister to begin with and stopped discussing my pregnancy.  I was, many times, casually asked, “So, have you decided what to do yet?” even when I was several months into the pregnancy. “Yes. I’m carrying on with my pregnancy.” Obviously.

In 99% of cases in which I said this to another female millenial, it was as if I’d leaped into the Parliamentary Chamber and announced that I’d be tabling a bill to propose an annual neo-Nazi holiday.  Before any actual verbal responses, I’d witness facial expressions morph from incomprehension, to shock, to fear and suspicion.  I wasn’t supposed to say that, clearly.  I came across as a generally capable, university-enrolled white girl who was a little too like them for comfort. It simply did not compute that their stereotypical image of the young pregnant mother was not what was standing in front of them, and this apparently made them feel out of control and afraid. Then I would be met with some choice remarks, actual examples of which I’ll list:

“What method of contraception were you using?  Remind me to never use it.”

“Are you serious?  Why didn’t you have an abortion? I would!” (Loudly in public)

“You’re just going to be another statistic.”

When I look back on this attitude, it shocks me enough.  But I still hadn’t expected to encounter the amount of negativity I did, and do, as a millenial who is also a mother.  In my experience, it tends to be young, middle-class white females who like to talk about certain groups being “othered”.  Well, I’d like to share my experience of being “othered”.  I can’t count the times I’ve sat quietly at a social event while another person complains loudly about how children are all terrible and implied that all parents are self-centered autobots who only had children because of “societal pressure” and a penchant for eugenics.  I had an early childhood trainee (who is lovely, and meant no offense) ask me at kindergarten, “So did you always want to be a young mother, or did you have, like, aspirations?” The fact that I’m more highly qualified than she is wasn’t worth the awkwardness in bringing up. Multiple people have said to me “Oh, good for you!” with a patronising shoulder-pat when I tell them I’m studying.  I’ve seen more than one article circulating in my social media sphere in the last few weeks about how having children is the single most selfish and unethical thing you can do, because of – no joke – climate change.  How pregnancy is the ultimate cause behind both local and global poverty, as well as the subjugation of women, who apparently are unaware that their true liberation lies in hating children.  People discussing who the most annoying customers to deal with are, rolling their eyes and spitting, “mothers”.

This happens among acquaintances who are fully aware that my husband and I have a child, and another on the way.  There are only two possible explanations I can conceive (hah!) of for why they might say such hurtful and degrading things in our presence. Either, and this is more likely, they simply don’t remember this about us because they have an inherent bias, and are so absorbed in the yo-pro world that they don’t even know of the existence of the enormous world of hard-working and well-meaning parent culture.  Or, they tolerate us being parents but don’t expect to have to act considerately of the fact, rather like a group of inherently racist white people who suddenly gain a Chinese friend, and continue to make jokes about the Chinese because, hey, she’s not really one of them, she’s an exception.  I’m quite sure that the same people would scream blue murder if I rolled my eyes and hissed, “babykillers“.

This is the crux of my issue with the popularisation and bastardisation of critical theory.  I do not know why the mass indoctrination of our generation with critical theory has not been successful, in that it has not achieved the goals of ’70s and ’80s critical and feminist scholars who envisioned a kind of inclusive paradise founded on Foucauldian tenets.  One possibility is that, try as you might, you simply cannot teach certain people to be intuitively critical thinkers.  There seems to be a disparity among people on this front, in that while book-smarts are relatively commonplace, it is generally held that the ability to intellectually engage, and critically analyse, is rarer and worthy of more commendation, certainly academically.  Some scholars will study endlessly and still find that they cannot achieve the grades that this ability would afford them, at least without very carefully and mechanically imitating the process.  This could explain why we seem to have a vocal lobby, active particularly on social media, who hypocritically engage in dogma-setting, exclusion and silencing on the grounds of critical theory itself.  This is how millenial non-parents manage to propagate what amounts to hate speech while seemingly missing the irony.

I’m beginning to do a bit of lay-research around why this attitude exists, and what sectors of the generation it exists in.  It is pretty apparent among my acquaintances (very scientific, I know) that those who grew up in religious households, and are religious themselves, have quite a different attitude.  This makes sense, family values being popular in monotheistic belief systems.  I would like to put aside some time to do academic research on these attitudes among different kinds of youth, but my calendar is a bit full.  I suspect that the internet plays an enormous part in convincing those of a ‘vocal’ age that their attitudes are shared by what they perceive to be society at large, although of course it is actually a microcosm, an illusory ‘public’ created by the intersection or not of particular social networks online.  This conviction, following critical theory itself, may serve to reinforce and in fact strengthen the attitude concerned.  What is as clear as day to me is that those young  women I spoke to when pregnant, and the ones I speak to now who are flabbergasted to discover that I have a child, are experiencing a kind of fear in the face of that confronting information; perhaps the “societal pressure” they mention is in fact their own externalised fear and confusion about their identity as twenty-first century women.  I inconveniently present myself to them as a non-stereotypical, non-beneficiary, postgraduate student and mother under the age of 25.  Perhaps  the hostility is simply the projected fear that having children actually might be something worthwhile, and not entirely soul-destroying, and they haven’t factored it into their future in a  practical way.

What I remember of sex education in my school certainly sent a message to us; pregnancy was worse than contracting HIV.  It was the ultimate disgrace and would ruin our lives.  We would be dole-bludging, pram-pushing zombies forevermore.  It is so true that not having useful conversations about healthy relationships, how to court, and when and why families are appropriate is detrimental to our young people.  You only hear in which context pregnancy and child-rearing are not societally appropriate.  It’s my belief that this has had a not inconsiderable effect on millenial values, at least among the non-religious.  My husband went to a Catholic boys’ school, and while they didn’t discuss contraception, they had a mandatory “Tots and Toddlers” class, which involved learning the basics of hands-on childcare and the importance of the role of men in families.  My husband remembers the class thoroughly enjoying this practical and playful lesson; he puts it down to Marist philosophy being infused into absolutely every aspect of his schooling.  Sure, there were a few young fathers that came out of that (excellent) school, as there were from many schools in Wellington.  But I’d be willing to bet there were very few absentee fathers.  Not to mention, of course, the fact that the link between teaching contraception and reduced teen pregnancy is dubious at best, considering the fact that New Zealand, which has a very liberal sex education curriculum, lags only behind the US in teen fertility rates among OECD countries.  It is statistically evident that the root cause of teen pregnancy is poverty and inequality, not education, and incidentally, that teen pregnancy (or pregnancy at any age) is not a cause of poverty.  While those in lower socioeconomic tiers are more likely to have teen pregnancies, teen mothers are likely to have the same future prospects as anyone from their socioeconomic cohort, even similar future salaries.  Clearly, pregnancy is not the evil we have been led to believe. Yet, I still heard a close friend comment recently that someone she knew was lucky to have had an abortion as a teenager because otherwise “she would’ve been stuck in [name of a somewhat dead-end town I can’t recall]”.

Are we simply a generation of nihilists?  I certainly come across a good deal of nihilistic justifications for discriminating against parents.  They generally relate to climate change, child sex offenders, terrorism, and the general belief that the world and people in general are hideous and, by extension, that we’d all be better off dead.  Thus, it’s unethical and selfish to have children.  Surely I don’t need to go into the immaturity of such a position.

Then, of course, you also come across the narcissistic explanations; “Parents are out to make ME as miserable as they are, cleaning up poo and vomit, and thus are engaged in a conspiracy to make me and all my friends parents too”.  This one has some interesting parallels with the ‘gay conspiracy’ theory that don’t go unnoticed by parents.  Another common one is “Parents view ME as a threat to social stability because I refuse to conform to their expectations.  Well, I won’t have kids out of spite”.

Rest assured, parents as a group do not spend a great deal of time thinking about non-parents, as a group, except when we are being made to feel like someone’s about to put us on a register.  The oft-cited “offensive” encouragement to have children is not intended to be a dig at their lifestyle or freedoms, and is not evidence of a conspiracy.  I don’t think it crosses their minds that it’s simply advice from someone who was once in their position, is now in a different position, and would like to let them know that they’ve found it much better on the other side.  Strangely, it is not criminally offensive when a successful lawyer tells you you should take an internship, or commit your entire life to your career.  It’s not inherently offensive when someone recommends that you go on an O.E. because it’ll change your entire outlook.  People tend to call this “advice”.  It is generally said out of a genuine wish to influence the happiness of a friend, rather than to be a complete tosser.  Being a parent, I’m afraid it is simply the truth that you cannot have any idea of the happiness (and hard work, and mess, and character improvement) that children bring if you aren’t one.  No, being an early childhood teacher is not close enough.  Neither is having a lot of little cousins.  It isn’t easy to explain why you can’t explain it, however, which generally leads to this being dismissed as condescending drivel.

Parenting immediately brings you outside of yourself, and you suddenly start to care a great deal about things that you have never even noticed before in your life.  The condition of neighborhood green spaces, playgrounds, libraries and pools.  The massive variety of quality in horrendously expensive fruit and vegetables.  The messages that suggestive brothel shopfronts send to young people on the streets.  All of these things affect millions of kids, who you must assume have parents who care as much about them as you do about yours.  Things that you previously settled for having an entirely idealistic position on, such as climate change, now become much more practical issues.  What is the best and most workable solution in actuality, and does it involve necessary compromise?  How do we begin to teach our children the values that will prepare them for being responsible, productive and compassionate custodians of the planet?  Can we implement this in schools?

So forgive me if I have no patience for other millenials telling me that I’m selfish and wasteful for having children.  I was under the impression that raising a family is a human right; and in fact, there is some excellent literature written by women from developing countries which expresses their offense at being told they cannot continue to reproduce because a corporate funding body in America has decided that pregnancy is the cause of global inequality.  They know what it is that causes inequality, and it isn’t “overpopulation”.  Development programme financiers, in particular the IMF, have been living  in fear of this knowledge being popularised.  See this article by Azizah al-Hibri, an originally Lebanese woman academic, for more on this:  https://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/v2i1/alhibr21.htm

Again we witness the irony of ‘popular’ critical theory; your conception of feminism must include transgender women, women of all races, etc., but should not include mothers.  It should also include ‘Third World’ women only so far as they accept pre-approved values, including the legitimisation of abortion and conraception; because apparently, despite agency being so important to millenial “critical theorists” themselves, these women just don’t know what’s good for them.  The reason mothers are excluded appears to simply be because the largely millenial authors of such theories are not able to see or imagine life outside of their prescribed prism of existence; they are completely blind to the parenting community, which causes them to have inherent biases.  They have no idea that millions of mothers, and a growing amount of fathers, talk online, meet up, share their experiences in support groups, and move the earth to create enjoyable experiences for their children, every day across the world.  They have no idea that parents work themselves to the bone being concerned with what kind of citizens their children will become, for the benefit of everyone else.

In the case of abortion, the same lobby argues that men don’t deserve a similar right to choose whether the pregnancy goes ahead, or a right to legislate abortions, on some grounds which can be argued very legitimately.  But there is also the argument that the man doesn’t carry the foetus in his body.  From the perspective of a parent, this position seems bizarre.  It isn’t a simple issue of bodily autonomy, as anyone who cares for a child will know; I can barely remember my pregnancy in the light of the fantastic time I’ve had with my son. Some people definitely do have horrendous pregnancies, and I wouldn’t dream of minimising that; but I doubt they would even consider that as part of day-to-day assessment of whether their child-rearing has been worth it or not. I hear people talking about how pregnancy is a ‘dangerous medical condition’ and absolutely unbearable for a variety of reasons.  Never mind that many who hold this opinion have never been pregnant.  This is simply the only point of reference they have for discussing abortion, as they have no experience of actually raising a child, pregnancy is something they understand the biology of and the image that looms in their head when they talk about “parenting”. They’ll also discuss the many flaws of “parents today” and how to raise a child properly, but, you know, they aren’t going to have any, but if they did…this attitude gets very tiring when the same lobby is trying to argue that nobody outside of a certain group (generally women, because that’s the group they most identify with) is allowed to have an opinion on how that group does things, because others have no idea what their experience is like.

In the end, I don’t pretend to have any answers about this, and this post can only be a simple exercise in self-expression; my peer group will probably not be affected in any way by it, and nor should they be forced to consider issues of parenthood when they aren’t ready.  However, I can’t pretend that an aggressive attitude towards parents doesn’t become tiresome when I’m just scrolling through my social media feed or minding my own business at a social event.  I would love to see some discussion from anyone who agrees or disagrees, or just wants to let me know they have experienced the same things.  I employed some references for my statistical statements:

New Zealand’s teen pregancy rate: UNICEF, Child poverty in perspective: an overview of child well-being in rich countries. Innocenti report card 7. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, 2007

Teen pregnancy and poverty: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/png/ajhb/2004/00000028/00000004/art00008  (to name one source, but you can find a myriad using databases.)

 

Please comment if you have shared my experience!

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

An essay I wrote for my 300-level (NZ = final undergraduate level) geopolitics paper.  The essay question was: Critically discuss what the Trans-Pacific Partnership can tell us about recent transformations in the international state system.  I received A+ for this essay.  Discussion or critique appreciated.  Please don’t steal my work (Turnitin will get you anyway).

 

The TPP evidences the substantial change in the international state system that has occurred in recent decades.  As a transnational agreement, it reflects a growing inclusion of global governance, rather than simply state sovereignty, as the means through which domestic policy is implemented.  Global governance is defined as a system of international coordination, based on multilateralism, and in which state sovereignty is not considered as important as integration (Heywood 2011).   In the pre-war and inter-war eras, and to a lesser degree under the Bretton Woods system, state sovereignty was considered practically absolute.  An examination of this legacy provides context, enabling the TPP to be understood as an important embodiment of modern global governance.  Though it is accepted that global governance diminishes the sovereignty of nation-states in the traditional sense, governments still utilise softer powers during negotiations in order to achieve their ends.

In order to understand the transformation in the international state system that the TPP demonstrates, the historical status quo must be considered.  It is most helpful to focus on economic relations, as this area is the one in which conflict might produce the most immediate and potentially serious consequences (Heywood).  Prior to WWI, and perhaps causing it (Heywood 2011), an imperial arrangement dominated the globe.  Within imperial systems, wealth is distributed very unevenly, concentrated at the centre (Baylis et. al. 2011)  A major causative factor of WWI was conflicting imperial interests.  The Depression of the 1930s then helped to feed political instability and extremism, culminating in WWII; protectionism was hereafter viewed unfavourably.  In 1944, at the UN Monetary and Financial Conference, it was decided that economic liberalism was the path to integration and the prevention of further crises.  Three organs were constructed, known collectively as the Bretton Woods System: the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.  The IMF oversaw the stabilisation of exchange rates by pegging them to the U.S. dollar, and the U.S. dollar to gold.  The World Bank provided reconstruction loans to war-affected parts of Europe.  GATT aimed to reduce tariffs on a global scale.  All of these organs together provided regulation of global trade and finance, with a view to integrating and liberalising (Baylis et. al.).  This is an early example of the kind of multilateralism exhibited in today’s system of global governance; an international agreement aimed at avoiding conflict, for which member states are required to surrender some sovereignty.  However, as will be discussed further on, the states involved in designing the system also had national interest in mind, and were merely pursuing their policy objectives through means other than the exercise of sovereignty . 

The Bretton Woods system remained functional until 1971, when President Nixon announced his New Economic Policy (U.S. Dept. of State 2013); after the system’s collapse, multilateral agreements continued to be popular.  The American dollar had become overvalued primarily because of military spending, and President Nixon unpegged the dollar from the value of gold.  Exchange rates were floating from this point on, so the organs of the Bretton Woods System could not fulfil their original purposes.  However, multilateralism was on the rise, and the organs adapted.  The IMF became somewhat of a watchdog for financial transparency; the World Bank turned its focus to developing nations in need of loans, and the GATT became the World Trade Organisation in 1995.   Along with these central multilateral bodies, regional trade and security agreements began to spring up frequently after the end of the Cold War.  Rosecrance (1991), from a realist perspective, argues that this was primarily due to the collapse of bipolarity.  By 2010, 462 regional trade agreements were known to the WTO (Heywood 2011).  This was the same year in which the TPP was entered into by New Zealand, Brunei, Chile and Singapore. 

The TPP demonstrates, in several ways, this gradual shift from an inter-war era of protectionism and strict exercise of state sovereignty.  Although the TPP negotiations themselves are not publicly released, and thus an analysis of individual parties’ conditions can only be performed to the extent that leaked documents reveal anything, the programme and locations of meetings, et cetera, are available.  The first noteworthy point is the lack of a supranational authority involved in the TPP negotiations.  The states involved in negotiating the TPP are surrendering some national sovereignty in order to make concessions; whereas in bygone eras, nations did not consider integration a primary goal, and as such exercised total sovereignty over domestic policy.  However, even though some sovereignty is being conceded, there is no larger power that coordinates these nations. While the WTO will require that the agreement is recorded, it does not have any binding power over states, so to speak (Heywood).  The WTO cannot be considered supranational for this reason.  The agreement exhibits multilateralism, as it is based on negotiations and agreement rather than authority.  Similar to earlier examples of multilateralism, such as NAFTA, the negotiations themselves are even moved around to different localities to create more of a sense of fairness and inclusion. 

The second notable way in which the TPP demonstrates global governance is the considerable involvement of transnational corporations, and, less influentially, other NGOs.  There are more than 600 TNCs involved in the negotiating rounds of the TPP (Citizens Trade Campaign 2014).  This reflects a “hollowing out” of the state in an upwards direction.  TNCs are involved in the agreement at the expense of members’ state sovereignty, because they are powerful enough to negotiate their preferred outcomes.  As Herod (2009) explains, TNCs are able to virtually dictate the financial environment of many states, because governments desire their investment.  They may demand tax breaks or amendments to labour legislation.  Thus, there is no denying the significance of TNCs as global actors which are, in some cases, more powerful than entire countries.  Multilateralism involves input from many more parties than just the traditional nation states; it includes TNCs and other NGOs.  Despite the restriction of TPP negotiations, the attendees of these rounds is sometimes public knowledge, and NGOs on a local level have been shown to have been included.  On April 20, 2012, First Union General Secretary Robert Reid stated in an interview for TVNZ’s Breakfast show that his organisation had had a presence at the most recent round of negotiations in Auckland, in an advisory capacity.  The Hon. Murray McCully also stated in the House on December 6th, 2010:

“MFAT has called for submissions from NZ interests in relation to TPP…the discussions underway in Auckland at the moment are open in the sense that there are over 100 national and international interest groups…”(inthehouseNZ 2010)

This demonstrates that along with an upwards “hollowing out” of the state, global governance operates on more regional and local levels.  This is an inherent trait of the system; unlike the earlier state-centric approach of government, governance is very versatile, and a single negotiation can involve multi-level input, from local to global. 

It is true that literature concerning the TPP is highly speculative, considering the confidentiality of the agreement.  A commonly cited protest to the TPP (It’s Our Future.co.nz 2012, New Zealand Herald 2013) is that it compromises state sovereignty.  While, as aforementioned, global governance as exemplified by the TPP is considerably less state-centric than earlier approaches to international relations, it is not necessarily true that sovereignty itself is under threat.  Baylis et. al. argue that this is irrefutably the case.  These authors cite the considerable involvement of TNCs in global governance as an insurmountable barrier to state sovereignty.  Uncontrollable cross-border financial flows, triangulation and problems of extraterritoriality of TNCs and their subsidiaries are given by way of explanation.  In the traditional sense of the term ‘Westphalian sovereignty’, that is, absolute sovereignty, these issues do pose a problem in terms of necessity for the state to consult with and consider other parties.  However, Herod and Heywood both take the opposite stance.  States, it is argued, may still maintain sovereignty through the strategic employment of such ‘soft power’ methods as negotiation, example and the establishment of trust. 

Insofar as sovereignty can be understood as the ultimate ability to implement policy, states are still able to do this within a system of global governance.  Two examples are relevant here: firstly, the U.S.’ motives in the original establishment of the Bretton Woods System; and secondly, that same nation’s intent regarding China and the TPP.  The U.S. was pursuing its maxim of economic integration in 1944 with the aim of expanding its hegemony.  John Maynard Keynes, of the U.K. delegation, had originally suggested that one of the supposed organs should have the power to hold large lender states accountable for ‘loan-sharking’, should smaller economies default on unreasonable debts.  The U.S. was able to completely negotiate this provision out of the agreement.  While Baylis et. al. make the point that states are unequal, and smaller ones have no hope of defending their sovereignty, it has been seen in the leaked Intellectual Property Rights provision of the TPP (Wikileaks 2013) that New Zealand disagrees with America over something in that section; and the Hon. Murray McCully stated in the House on December 6th, 2010 (inthehouseNZ), that the government is not prepared to negotiate on the status of Pharmac.  It is therefore clear that, despite being a small state, the NZ government believes it has reasonable bargaining clout in the negotiations.  In another example of soft power exercise, it is argued by Kelsey (2013) that the U.S. intends to either isolate China from its Asia-Pacific trading partners by joining the TPP, or to force China to join and agree to American provisions.  Either way, both of these nations will be required to make some policy concessions, but will not be so isolated that they will be forced to accept unfavourable outcomes.  With a lack of bipolarity and a variety of regional trade communities, both the U.S. and China will have other, albeit perhaps less lucrative, opportunities.  As such, both are free to pursue policy objectives in the negotiations, but will fall short of being able to blackmail one another.

The TPP is a convenient vehicle through which to understand the recent changes to the international state system, as these are most easily conveyed from an economic perspective.  The pre- and inter- war eras, from imperial beginnings, emphasised the significance of the nation-state and the sovereignty thereof. The implementation of the Bretton Woods System was the point of change after which multilateralism began to replace this state-centric approach.  Despite the collapse of Bretton Woods in the 1970s, global governance – as opposed to government – gradually became more salient, particularly after the end of the Cold War; and this system is prevalent today, employed on both macro and micro levels, from the global marketplace to local councils.  Advisory groups, business interests and states all cooperate to achieve the most mutually beneficial end possible.  The TPP evidences the involvement and power of TNCS; the inclusion of small NGOs; and the ability of states to employ ‘soft power’ methods to achieve policy goals.  It is this ability that circumvents the proposal that states are losing sovereignty under the global governance model.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                           BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

 

Baylis, J., Smith, S., & Owens, P. (2011). The globalisation of world politics. Oxford, England: Oxford     University Press.

 

Citizens Trade Campaign. (2014). The Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement: NAFTA for the Pacific Rim?. Retrieved from http://www.citizenstrade.org/ctc/trade-policies/tpp-potential-trade-policy-problems/

 

Goodwin, M. (2009). Governance. in R. Kitchin and N. Thrift (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Human Geography (pp. 593-599). Oxford: Elsevier.

 

Herod, A. (2009). Governing Globalization: Geographies of Globalization. Malden, MA, Oxford and West Sussex UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

 

Heywood, A. (2011). Global politics. Hampshire, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

 

inthehouseNZ. (2010, December 6). Question 1: Russel Norman to the Minister of Trade [Video file].  Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LICeK6xizro

 

Jane Kelsey: TPPA end game can only come from dirty compromises. (2013, Nov. 29). New Zealand Herald. Retrieved from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11164328

 

Kelsey, J. (2013). US-China relations and the geopolitics of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA). Third World Resurgence, No. 275. Retrieved from http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-china-relations-and-the-geopolitics-of-the-trans-pacific-partnership-agreement-tppa/5357504

 

Rosecrance, R. (1991). Regionalism and the post-Cold War era. International Journal XLVI. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/40202895?uid=3738776&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21104253025633

 

U.S. Dept. of State. (2013). Nixon and the end of the Bretton Woods System, 1971-1973. Retrieved from http://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/nixon-shock

 

Wikileaks. (2013). Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) – IP Chapter.  Retrieved from     https://wikileaks.org/tpp/

 

 

 

Grade: A+

This is an excellent essay. It shows a clear understanding of the international state system and the concepts we use in the course to understand its transformation and you integrate this successfully with a good sense of the TPP. The essay is well constructed and well written and you show the ability to make use of examples in appropriately nuanced ways. I’m glad to hear you are considering postgrad study! Great work.

RP

Read Full Post »

Good Gracious!

I’m sorry for neglecting this project!  An interesting development occurred (I became a mother).  Now that I’m at home during the day looking after my beautiful boy, I occasionally have windows of time for projects.  I want to pick up here where I left off, so watch this space.  I’ll just need to refamiliarise myself with the subject matter, ha, ha.  See you soon!

Read Full Post »