World War I and II have conveyed a clear confirmation that a successful economy, upon which political stability rests, is the best means to ward off another occurrence of a major war. Attaining economic prosperity and political stability entails reconstructing the economy and the infrastructures. This was the common objective of the participating states as in the case of international economic system and for such to be accomplished; they had to collaborate with the regime headed by the US government.
The US had come out of the Second World War with the strongest economy, making them the best candidate to lead the enterprise. Additionally, the US' management was pushed by the international economic system's influential members with regard to the goals and means of the system. 2 The delegates in the regime have arrived at an understanding on economic policy whose emphasis is on liberal capitalism that seemed to be the best method in economic growth and in the preservation of amicable connections between states by cutting down on possible combative barriers to trade.
To accomplish these goals, the delegates recognized that multilateral measures must be done to guarantee cooperation, keep the crises within limits and lessen conflict because it was admitted that steering the international economy to the ploy of market forces would draw another major instability as was manifested in the Great Depression. Therefore, supranational institutions were created to supervise several aspects of the economic regime.
These institutions were the following: International Monetary Fund, International Board of Reconstruction and Development or the World Bank, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. In spite of the fact that these institutions lack the means of enforcement, in large part, the states have conformed to the instituted rules and regulations as far as their relations with one another were concerned. Once more, it was because of the common goals that they have that they bear with it to cooperate.
According to Spero and Hart, the spirit of cooperation was persistently pushed by the leaders of the industrialized nations for the goal of maintaining economic prosperity and political stability. 2 Despite a nation's unwillingness to cooperate, there simply was no choice but to adhere to it because of the undesirable political and economic sanctions that come with it. Some of the penalties include the loss of most-favored nation status, getting excluded from future trade agreements and dismissal from international organizations.
The presence of an international society is reflected in the duration of the international economic system. In the absence of an agreement and compromise as in the case of the international economic society, the international economic system would have been long since dismissed. It's highly unlikely that international economic system would have been suggested in the first place if the international society didn't exist. Despite leaving no room for error, the growth of international society corresponding exactly with international economic system has had its share of deficiencies.
The major fault that the international economic system has been criticized for was its inadequacy in taking charge of the regime. The international economic system was criticized for its apparent favoring of the common interests of the influential countries that have formulated its existence and this instability in terms of power has remained all the way throughout the period of interdependence up to the worldwide growth of modern time. The international economic society is not a democratic organization because it is under the control of the influential and powerful nations in the West.
Though certain injustice attached to the organization have caused a development of frequent encounters between abundant and miserable countries, the prevailing perspective of the influential nations in the international society is the fact that while the international economic system may be imperfect, there's just no other choice but to stick with it since it's the best one that was there and must be preserved over and above the demands of international justice.
Despite the Western leaders' consideration for justice, stability of the organization must be on top of the priority and importance because without which, it's impossible for justice to dominate. As expected, underdeveloped nations of the world have different views. They contend of having been deprived of their rights by the system, something that they claim to be unfair; that among the many including the system taking advantage of their being low-level and often ill-used.
Certainly, the underdeveloped nations in the South see the international system as being unfair, unjust, and illegitimate for reasons that they feel that the system has not given them the benefits accorded to them. An oligarchy of the powerful and influential countries is the one in control of the major economic institutions on which the poor countries have been discarded of their share in the decision-making processes on the grounds of their lack of political and economic influence.
Furthermore, a lot of the less developed Southern nations are barely able to afford to join in international economic forums which always happen in abundant and expensive cities. And if someone does get the chance to attend, they usually have little contribution given their scarcity in the bureaucratic, financial and educational resources. This however made no sense because many think that the Western-dominated international economic system should be altered so that the underdeveloped nations can get up from their state of poverty.