1. Realist
1.1. Trade secondary to security
1.2. Strong economy will create better security
1.3. Zero-Sum games
1.4. US emerged as world hegemon
1.5. Bretton Woods
1.5.1. Finance govern by US because of its strength
1.5.2. Trade:
1.5.2.1. Hegemony is not complete
1.5.2.2. Free trade depends on power of hegemony to punish defectors
1.6. IMF changes plan and move toward Washington Concensus
1.7. Protectionism is on the rise, so states go back to security thinking
1.8. Want new leaders for international institutions
1.9. Doesn't know what to think of China's rise, may be good or cause disruption
2. Overview
2.1. Liberals
2.1.1. Globalization re-creating world politics
2.2. Realists
2.2.1. Globalization is reversible, and decision to change are made by states, so conflict may increase
2.3. Neo-Marxist
2.3.1. Agree with Realist, but think conflict will be between people not states
3. Liberal
3.1. Most opportune time to create international institutions
3.2. Trade became very important for relations
3.3. States were built on economies
3.4. Against Beggar thy neighbor
3.5. Bretton Woods
3.5.1. 1: states agreed to negotiate, for less trade barriers and tariffs
3.5.2. 2: Based on MFN (most favoured nation)
3.6. Keohane's After Hegemony
3.6.1. 1: Reliance on dollar led to wobblies
3.6.2. 2: Energy crisis: caused financial crisis and inflation
3.6.3. 3: WB (world bank) became an agent of development
3.7. Series of financial crisis may be a threat to open trade
3.7.1. Protectionism and Anti-globalization movements countered
3.8. Rise of G-20
3.9. Integration of new MFN China
4. Neo-Marxists
4.1. Trade and Globalization increase inequality and social tension in states
4.2. Society must defend itself against Capitalism
4.3. Depression caused by lack of regulation, too much competition
4.4. US becomes world Hegemon
4.4.1. Created environment that favoured the US interest and dominance of the sytem
4.5. Bretton Woods
4.5.1. Same as the realist account, but was a cost with increased military spending