Globalization and the End of Anarchy

Nothing in this world is a stronger motivator than money. Let's face it, like people, states are inherently self-interested. People will do just about anything for money, which begs the question, can money make people behave? Can it make states behave?

I thoroughly enjoyed Frieden and Rogowski's work for the sole purpose of their main idea: globalization constrains states. Their premise, and the point of my question above, is that money does make states behave. States love money so much they are willing to constrain themselves to get it. Apply it to organizations like the WTO. The WTO requires that its members submit their autonomy to the organization whenever they are called upon to settle a dispute. States must accept the WTO's decision or risk economic backlash from the other party in the dispute. But what is the alternative? To not be a part of the WTO risks huge loss in trade and economic protection. It is in everybody's benefit to play by the rules and constrain themselves so states go ahead and do it. Such constraint should have realists heading for the hills.

So long as the returns remain high states will continue to integrate, creating more and more constrained state actors. Liberal institutionalists will point to issue linkages, greater absolute gains, and lower risk of cheating being associated with globalization and, therefore, institutionalization. I would argue that that is all very true, but it is money that is going to be the driving force underpinning the system. Money will bring about a more integrated world.