What started as a worry about artists and collectors fleeing to New York transformed the contemporary art scene in Los Angeles and set the city on the path to become a global city. I use global city as opposed to world city, for its subtle nuances as Saskia Sassen has noted. Global cities incorporate more of a networked hub of activity than just an insular hub of activity, as a world city is understood to be.

The concept of a global city “brings a strong emphasis on the networked economy” and “where a multiplicity of globalization processes assume concrete, localized forms.” These processes include a range of operations: political, economic, and cultural. Global cities can be world cities, but don’t have to be—Miami has developed as a global city, one that assumes those globalization processes, but it is not a world city in the old sense of the term (e.g. New York, London). For the purpose of this paper, I will use the term global cities and will focus primarily on the cultural processes.

The idea of a museum dedicated to contemporary art came about in 1979 from efforts by artists, collectors, museum directors and curators who recognized the need for a world-class museum for contemporary art and an especial need for it in the West Coast. The fanfare was well recognized and reverberated across the country back to New York. Shortly after its plans were finalized 1983, art magazines were already dubbing it “the country’s best known unbuilt art museum,” “pinned on it the artistic/aesthetic hopes of so many people.” New York Times Art Critic John Russell wrote in 1984 that the greater Los Angeles area could become a new place for high art to be studied, similarly to New York or Washington, if all goes well.

Only a little over 30 years old, MOCA now has three different buildings throughout the city of Los Angeles devoted to contemporary art: MOCA on Grand Avenue, which is the main site, the Geffen Contemporary in Little Tokyo, which hosts new artists and large-scale work, and MOCA at the Pacific Design Center in West Hollywood. However, in the same 30 years, what was written in 1986, “the concept that Los Angeles has become a cultural mecca remains in question,” is still being debated, by some (New Yorkers mostly) more than others. MOCA was instituted because it addressed a need for contemporary art in the West Coast, but it also crafted a new cultural identity for Los Angeles as a global city.

Surreptitiously, while there was this need for a home for contemporary art, not just in Los Angeles, but the world, the Bunker Hill area in downtown Los Angeles was undergoing a multi-million dollar redevelopment project called California Plaza. With the support of then mayor of Los Angeles, Tom Bradley, the project was integrated as part of a city-brokered deal into the initial phase of the California Plaza project. The museum was part of an 11.2 acres, $1.2 billion development plan in Bunker Hill downtown, with the $23 million cost of the Grand Avenue building paid by the Californa Plaza Partnership, the developer of the California Plaza Bunker Hill project. Now, MOCA is leasing the facility from the City of Los Angeles for 50 years, until the year 2038.

With MOCA’s groundbreaking on Grand Avenue scheduled for mid-1983 with a projected completion date of late 1986, it was clear that excitement and interest around the museum would fade quickly. The solution was to create a temporary space to act as a “transitional home” — so became the Temporary Contemporary, which opened in November 1983. Frank Gehry was the architect chosen to renovate the original Albert Martin-designed 1947 Union Hardware industrial warehouses, which was an apt decision given his own industrial style. Gehry capitalized on the original warehouse’s resemblance to many artists’ studios and left most of the exterior and interior space intact, even leaving a steel crane rail to nod to the building’s original purpose as a warehouse. The gallery, totaling 55,000 square feet , is lit by wire-glass skylights, has south-facing clerestory windows. Exposed steel beams support the space’s many movable walls. A canopy of chain-link fencing spanning Central Avenue extending to the length of the building rests above the access point while simultaneously forms a plaza space. Overall, the existing structure had minimal intervention of fireproofing, exhibition walls, and access points. As the largest of the three buildings, this gallery is used to showcase larger works or works by new artists. It 1996, following a $5 million gift from The David Geffen Foundation, the Temporary Contemporary was renamed MOCA at The Geffen Contemporary.

As scheduled, in December 1986 MOCA on Grand Avenue was completed by Japanese architect Arata Isozaki with MOCA being his first piece in the United States. The museum was built by the California Plaza Partnership and funding for the building, which cost $23 million, was provided by an initiative of the Community Redevelopment Agency, which stipulated that 1.5% of the total budget of any development within CRA be set aside for public art. The site area is 40,000 square feet but the building itself is only 28,500 square feet. It is unique in that the gallery is not created on the upper ground level but underground. The upper ground displays geometric pyramids, cubes and cylinders that contrast with the mix of Indian red sandstone and red granite. Inside, the pyramids work as skylights to naturally fill the room with natural night. The galleries are quiet and spacious, which allow the viewer to deeply engage with the pieces.

The last building, a 4,000 square foot free standing gallery at the Pacific Design Center in West Hollywood, was completed in December 2000 by Cesar Pelli. This two-story structure was established for international architecture, design, and art exhibitions. The building itself is located in the two-acre outdoor plaza of the Pacific Design Center and it is a 12-inch thick architectural concrete structure with gypsum board interior surfaces. There is exposed concrete floors on the first level, and wooden floors on the second.

Sharon Zukin, a sociologist at the City University of New York, has done research on the impact of culture on cities. Throughout her work, I found three themes that she argues that could be applied to MOCA’s implementation in downtown Los Angeles. The first is that (1) culture and cultural capital is the new economic driver behind cities and urban culture, sometimes intersecting both artistic and business interests. Secondly, (2) there is an increasingly privatization of public spaces which may be reactionary to the first point in that it is an accommodation for the new urban dwellers. Finally and most importantly, Zukin notes that (3) the soul of a city is its people and its roots, and that cities will survive because of the diversity of its people, not in spite of it. These three arguments can be applied to not just to the California Plaza project as a whole, but also to the influx of new cultural and commercial development projects in city centers. Zukin mostly refers to New York and London as global and world cities, but using this framework, we can analyze the makings of Los Angeles as a global city through its cultural and art emphasis in development projects.

Gentrification began in 1950s and early 1960s in cities like New York and London and slowly attracted people, but really gained momentum in the 1980s. By then, it was being marketed to middle-class families as a safe place. The height of gentrification represented cities as a period of decline as people and business fled to the suburbs. Eventually, the new consumer’s taste displaced a lot of the original tenants. That said, it’s important to recognize the social and cultural capital of people.

When the California Plaza project was first introduced, it was called “the most ambitious mixed-used urban development in the West” and with reason. It attempted to fuse urban spaces with people’s needs, but let the goal of evening the playing field fall by the way side. The soul of the city, Zukin says, is not in its buildings, but in its people and their roots. However, when financial elites (say those in charge of the California Plaza project) and elected officials change the rules to favor deregulation and create more facilities for cultural consumption (MOCA), the physical landscape of global cities did not separate creativity from consumption, which ultimately leads to more homogenization and standardization as more cities compete with one another to provide the same cultural services. In The Los Angeles Plaza, David William Estrada stressed the importance of public spaces as a way to understand cultural and political meaning in contemporary Los Angeles. The new business district, which the California Plaza project continued, was “designed to ensure a seamless continuum of middle-class work, consumption, and recreation that was insulated from the city’s immigrant poor. ” The creation of this “quasi-public” space (renovated Pershing Square, LA Live, etc.) “reflects a national movement toward defensible urban centers and the corresponding loss of public space.”

Cities will survive because of the diversity of its people, but there is no diversity when everyone is a college-educated gentrified, or the “creative class,” a term that has been coined by Richard Florida. There is a tremendous cultural value in diversity, and if a contemporary art museum is able to bring that diversity together in a common place, then I believe Los Angeles has succeeded. Otherwise, Zukin may be correct in that cultural gentrification’s dark side of aggressive private-sector bidding for control of public spaces, as well as an increasing redesign of the built environment for the purpose of social control.

“Verizon releases its own iPhone 4 on Feb. 10, and according to president and chief executive officer Dan Mead, online sales broke records within the first two hours. But is it worth it to upgrade or buy the phone at full price, or even switch services? Daily Bruin senior staff Millie Tran gives her take on Verizon’s big step.”

Let’s be clear: I do not know how to hack a computer.

However, with the release of a new Firefox extension, any schmo like myself could access your information stored as “cookies” fairly easily.

And I did – I put my hand in the cookie jar, kind of.

There were clear ethical dilemmas, but sans malice and for the sake of research, I was ready to try and hack my peers. I downloaded Firesheep, which was not difficult, and tested it on two Wi-Fi networks on campus: UCLA_WIFI and UCLA_WEB.

Eric Butler, the programmer of Firesheep, introduced the extension last month at ToorCon, a hacker conference for security experts.

Firesheep is Butler’s attempt to push sites such as Facebook, Twitter and even Google to protect their users against one of the oldest and simplest ways of hacking – session hijacking.

But after trying the application on both UCLA networks, the only login information I was able to capture was my own. The short answer about my self-hacking exercise is that I needed to be on a local insecure network.

While my attempts at hacking were unsuccessful, it was useful to see which social networking accounts of mine could be sidejacked, from Amazon and Facebook to Twitter and Yelp.

Session hijacking, or sidejacking, is not a new problem. Firesheep just makes it accessible to everyone in a graphical way.
“If you can download music, you can install this,” said Peter Schultze, systems administrator in the computer science department.

That said, I would hesitate to say that anyone who can use a computer can automatically make sense of the extension. Because Firesheep is not endorsed by Mozilla, it is only available from a third-party site, making it less convenient to add to Firefox.

Most online services use a process of encryption indicated by “https://” to protect your user name and password upon log-in.

But social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter send data exchanges in unencrypted, plain text.

The post-log-in text data, called “cookies,” signal that you have logged in and allow you to continue using the site without asking for your information again. Because the data is being sent back and forth unencrypted post-log-in, the information is readily available to anyone looking for it.

“It requires more server capacity (to encrypt post-log-in), which would require more money,” Schultze said.

Butler may be trying his hand at “hacktivism,” or hacking for a presumably good cause, according to his blog.

“This approach to exposing vulnerabilities has a very old history in computer science and engineering,” said Leah Lievrouw, a professor in the UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies.

Hacktivists attempt to privately expose the security holes in software and notify the vendor to create updates or patches to fix the vulnerability.

While hacktivism usually has political ends, it’s important to distinguish that goal from a market-driven approach to bug-finding, Lievrouw said.

“The responsible ones first contact the vendor and give them a certain amount of time for a response before publishing the exposure. The bigger idea is that, in the long term, it’s better for the common good,” Schultze said. “However, (Firesheep) goes a bit beyond the common hacktivism. Here, someone brings out a very easy-to-use tool for many people to expose a known vulnerability.”

While Butler’s approach may seem unethical, the alternative may be worse.

“In a situation like this one, I don’t think it’s more ethical to wait. It’s very fair if there’s a segment of the public that is vulnerable to this and may not be as sophisticated to protect themselves, ” Lievrouw said.

There are various ways to protect yourself. On campus, there are three basic solutions: use a counter extension, connect to the UCLA_SECURE Wi-Fi network or use UCLA’s virtual private network.
Using another Firefox extension such as Blacksheep will notify you when someone is accessing your cookie information. However, that’s the extent of protection.

Connecting to UCLA’s only secure Wi-Fi network on campus will require you, in both Mac OS X and Windows 7, to go into your network preferences and set up an account with your Bruin OnLine user name and password.

Finally, to connect via UCLA’s VPN, you will need to download two things: a program to use to connect, most likely Cisco’s VPN client, and a configuration file.

“It may seem like scaremongering, but to demand change, especially in the market, you do it with public demand,” Lievrouw said. “Firesheep was aimed at a dozen or so of the most popular sites. If you want to make a big demonstration, you choose the biggest target.”

“Pics or it didn’t happen,” is generally a joke. But really, if an event happens and there are no photos on Facebook, did it really happen?

Humans have terrible memories. Robots and computers generally have terrific memories.

Documenting and quantifying things help us by giving concrete reassurance, ensuring that whatever we’re doing is optimized.

Numbers and the act of quantifying provide the opaqueness where our flimsy memories only provide a foggy recollection.

Now, with the help of Facebook, all of your friendships are neatly delineated on one page.

Last week, Facebook began introducing its latest feature, “Friendship Pages.” This new option allows you to see all public data between two people on one page, including wall posts, comments, photos, events attended and mutual friends.

“Memory is not entirely voluntary. Things happen, and you just remember it. We often forget things, but Facebook says, ‘You have a record of it here,’” said Benjamin Karney, a professor of social psychology who also studies change and stability in relationships.

Users can view the pages of themselves and a friend, but they can also view any page as long as they are friends with one of the users and have permission to view both profiles.

This feature doesn’t create any new content. Instead, it aggregates and displays existing data in a consolidated way.

Quantifying our relationships in this way can be endearing.

“It gives me a fun and meaningful glimpse of the friendship between two people I know,” Facebook engineer Wayne Kao wrote on the Facebook blog.

I tend to use Facebook more to interact with friends who aren’t immediately accessible in real life.

Facebook allows relationships to transcend geographic and temporal boundaries, said Yunxiang Yan, a professor of anthropology who focuses on social change and development.

“(But) intensive face-to-face interaction may also be required. Both types are necessary in contemporary life,” Yan said.

With Facebook, it’s not strange to have networks of hundreds or maybe thousands of people.

“Facebook allows you to have this huge and complex network, one that used to require you to be a highly active and social person.

Fifty years ago, you’d be famous to have a network like this,” Karney said.

It’s normal to track memories; we’ve all written in a journal at one point or another or have looked through photo albums and scrapbooks. But what happens when this process is automated and aggregated so easily? Does this new way of quantifying friendships change the underlying nature of friendships?

“Did the telephone or printing press change the nature of relationships? No. Not in any profound way. It’s just another highly efficient way of communication. Fundamentally, our need to belong and our desire for companionship remains. Your need for a good friend still remains,” Karney said.

It’s important to note that our friendships – yes, offline friendships – should be supplemented, not supplanted by our online interactions.

“This might be the first step in forming deeply rooted and longer lasting relationships through commitment. If Facebook helps people escape from commitment, it goes nowhere,” Yan said.

Once I foolishly thought that liking computers meant I could and should be a computer scientist. Half of two programming classes later, I sought refuge in the social sciences.

Since that lapse in judgment, I decided to overcompensate by reading about everything tech-related to stay in the loop.

It’s not the hardware that excites me per se, though I will never turn down a good-looking device. Nor is it the software; I’m an admiring observer when it comes to both. What does excite me comes from what I know as a consumer and user of both of the above.

Technology in all its form, but especially the Internet and computers, is wired in daily life and study. From anthropology to economics to psychobiology, a connection can always be made.
Think of this as your weekly connection.

This column won’t tell you how to code the next Facebook, for I don’t know anything past “Hello World!” (the first thing you learn in any programming class), but it will try to illustrate how new and existing platforms, programs, and playthings will affect our collective behavior.

To inaugurate this column, I contacted two former professors of mine. One taught a seminar on Google; the other, by about three degrees of separation, helped create the Internet.

Asked what new developments or trends in technology they were most excited about, both mentioned the behemoth and ultimate curator of the Internet: Google.

Google has been extending its reach beyond search engine functions, dabbling in automobiles, alternative energy and television.

Earlier this month, The New York Times reported on Google’s modified Toyota Prius, which was spotted along Highway 1 driving itself. The car uses a series of sensors to navigate the streets and artificial-intelligence software to make decisions based on its surroundings.

“(Automated cars) won’t happen overnight,” said Martin Greenberger, the IBM chair in computers and information systems at the UCLA Anderson School of Management. “But what’s possible to achieve are worth paying attention to, especially as safety comes up as an issue.”

Robot cars have the potential to react faster and drive more efficiently than humans can. Implementing this technology could double the capacity of roads by allowing cars to drive closer together. While autonomous cars are far from appearing on the highways en masse, there is a strong safety incentive to eventually mass producing them.

As Google tests what’s possible in autonomous driving, the result “will influence the shape of personal transportation in ways that’s a little bit hard to draw the picture currently,” Greenberger said.

Yet there are many road blocks to implementing self-driving cars in the technical and legal realms.

Not to outdo itself on the streets with self-driven cars, Google took it to the shores and announced its partnership with Good Energies to invest a proposed $5 billion for offshore wind farms along the Atlantic Seaboard.

With the system’s 350-mile backbone cable, to be called the Atlantic Wind Connection, the states along the East Coast would be able to use and store turbine energy. There are clear environmental and economic benefits, but there are also bureaucratic and political hindrances. The project is still unfolding but worth following.

The last in this trio of Google pursuits is the initial release of Google TV, the latest attempt to integrate traditional cable, satellite and broadcast TV with video from YouTube or Netflix, alongside Web content.

“(Usually) you have a successful model and you continue, but in tech, it changes. Google knows how to do these things,” said John Richardson, professor and associate dean of UCLA’s Graduate Division in Information Studies. Richardson also teaches a Fiat Lux seminar on Google.

Google as a home entertainment platform may be confusing because it’s both hardware and software that could be integrated with your TV. Rather than channeling in on the specifics, imagine the Google search bar returning online video and live TV results in addition to Web results. By combining TV with the Web, the traditional entertainment system becomes interactive.

Smart phones have augmented our expectations of a cell phone and have changed the way we interact with mobile devices.

“TV has really worked its way right into the fabric of society. … In the longer term, (Google) could alter the way we use TV,” Greenberger said.

If TV is the next frontier to be revolutionized, I better get one soon.

The live site can be found here: overandback.dailybruin.com.

This package was a National Finalist in Online In-Depth Reporting for the 2010 Mark of Excellence Awards from the Society of Professional Journalists, and was First Place in Online In-Depth Reporting for the 2010 SPJ Region 11 Mark of Excellence Awards.

What’s the home page of your browser? Whatever it is, that window is a subtle window to your accumulated interests or your way to get the news and, by a long shot, maybe even your appreciation for a faster load time.

Those interests we’ve amassed, the collective memory and general knowledge bank, have been developed and delivered from the top down. Facts used to be taught in school by rote. If someone deemed something important, it was important.

Now, the Internet is killing general knowledge. Why memorize state capitals and stanzas when you can look them up?

OK, I lie. I don’t think the Internet is killing general knowledge. I do think that there is a balance between the skills to look up a fact and knowing the fact itself.

Strive for that balance because general knowledge and the collective memory constantly change. Once cultural references are relegated to cultural relics.

Take, for example, Minerva – no, not Professor Minerva McGonagall or the Half-Life 2 mod – Minerva, the Roman goddess of wisdom who is, coincidentally, on our state’s seal. Minerva was born fully grown from the brain of Jupiter, similar to how California moved quickly from independence to annexation by the United States.

In contrast, we all have a long history, including Minerva and California, which we have to objectively view in its entirety to determine and develop our own beliefs.

I was listening to “This I Believe,” a broadcast on National Public Radio based on Edward R. Murrow’s radio show by the same name in the 1950s. Naturally, I wondered what it was that I believed.

When we were young, it was easy to have convictions. The sky was blue. Rocks were hard. In contrast to the absolute way we thought about people, events and ideas when we were younger, everything is more nuanced now – nuanced by our different backgrounds, interests and circumstances.

I believe in change – not of the Barack Obama variety, just change.

We are perpetually depositing a coin in our knowledge bank every day. Learning facts is not a means to an end; it’s a continuous cycle. It’s a lifelong accumulation of experiences, the people you’ve met and, of course, things you were taught.

The inclination to scapegoat the Internet for the dumbing down of society is easy. When the Egyptian god Thoth invented writing and offered it as a gift to the king of Egypt, the king said the “invention will produce forgetfulness” and “(equip) your pupils with only a semblance of (wisdom), not with truth.” When Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press, the same cries were heard.

Now, just as Thoth and Gutenberg had before, the Internet has dissolved and democratized the whole structure of knowledge.
The fountain of information has exploded – take advantage of it. We have the power to change how we digest knowledge, how we get the news and what news we get. We are no longer vassals ingesting information fed to us.

I had a humbling conversation with a columnist the other day. While deliberating on a column idea, I hastily suggested he write about the search for knowledge in the study of philosophy, to which he retorted, “OK, that’s weaksauce. The search for knowledge is an imperative of every major.”

So, my modest advice to you:

• Read a newspaper everyday, preferably this one because it’s free and it’s about you.
• Question everything and think critically. Don’t just passively absorb everything you’re taught – not because what you’re reading or hearing is wrong, but because you will stand to gain more by knowing why or why not.
• Talk to everyone, but listen more.
• Be curious. Always.

Knowledge is important because you cannot think critically and creatively without knowing a wide range of basic facts. How we connect and manipulate those facts are the foundations of thinking – and that’s what we’re here to learn.

You have the power to achieve that balance between knowledge and skill. You can change the home page of your browser.

And if you must know, my home page is blank – I appreciate the faster load time.

The CSS file is available here and the live Burkle Center website can be found at http://international.ucla.edu/burkle.

Before 1648 and the Peace of Westphalia, states were grouped in geographical blocks, with a focal point usually being the capital of the empire. However, following the treaty, which recognized the territory and sovereignty of each state, the conception of the state shifted to bounded states. At the time, this conception of territory and state sovereignty encouraged individual states’ development over exploitation of larger areas, or colonialism . Now, the implications of that treaty are still very relevant. It suggests that each state is responsible for its own actions, not to other states, successfully paving the way for the breakdown of collective action.

This is a problem when states are confronted with global problems such as global warming. This issue in particular is extremely important given the consequences and costs of inaction – high human costs and essentially an unlivable Earth. A graphic by the CNA Corporation, a think tank funded by the Pentagon , illustrates the impact and probability of impact of the Cold War compared to climate change. For the Cold War, there is on “X” in the quadrant, indicating that while the impact was high (nuclear war), the probability was low. However, in the quadrant for climate change, there are two “X’s” showing that both the probability and impact are high . Regardless of states’ decisions to act politically, everyone will ultimately pay a cost that is greater than any short-term economic gain. In all three perspectives, states’ decisions are constrained by a variety of factors, including economic cost, competing interests and simply, the difficulty of collective action – as evidenced by the tragedy of the commons game. If national interest continues to drive states’ actions under realist theory, then the collective action necessary to combat climate change will not be achieved. However, if there is a readjustment of national interest to include climate change, states’ interest will be redefined to include the common interest, as identity theory suggests, and finding a solution to global warming will ultimately become a rational choice for the state, solving the tragedy of the commons.

Global warming has been researched and analyzed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 2,000 climate change experts. Since the late 1990s, the IPCC has reported about the causal relationship between human activity, or the increase in greenhouse gases, and global warming, with 90 percent confidence . The effects found are disastrous: ocean levels will rise and entire towns will sink, crops and wildlife will not survive, and weather patterns will cause unnatural and frequent disasters . However, the costs are not limited to the environment. If the arctic ice continues to melt, there could be a resource scramble for its methane-rich polar caps, and the possibility of war to gain access to the drastically shorter trade routes . In addition, global warming could threaten already unstable regions, such as Afghanistan and many parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, and further exacerbate the crises already in place. Clearly, these consequences will dramatically affect, and possibly threaten, the national security of many countries, including that of the United States.

All of the aforementioned effects will also prompt mass migration of populations due to unlivable environments. Not only will wage and economic prosperity be pull factors for these immigrants, but also quality of life and habitat. However, realists tend to object liberalization of immigrant flows unless it offers a national advantage. In this circumstance though, forced immigration will not contribute to any gain in relative national power and may even be a burden. Even the liberal perspective does not favor immigration unless there is a specific opportunity to match labor skill and economic need . Also, the common rules and standards that liberals desire to govern immigrant flows will be eroded as the cost of protecting borders comes at the expense of human life.

In the same way that states’ actions are constrained by the global economy in that it needs to accepts the costs of integration or be left behind, states’ action in regards to global warming is also constrained by the immediate economic opportunity costs of addressing an abstract and distant problem. This directly conflicts realist theory stating that the states’ primary interest is to advance their own power, economically and politically. If the start of the Industrial Revolution marked the exponential increases in greenhouse gases, then globalization and the increased transport and trade of goods have continued to contribute to that increase. However, if the increase of greenhouse gases is proportional to increased trade and thereby, economic growth, then each state will, rationally, oppose to sacrifice its own growth. The states’ decision remain a compromise between the international community’s desires and its own. The result, therefore, will always be a decision between what is necessary to combat global warming, which is the global interest, and what is less than necessary, or the desire of the state to fulfill its own interests – or simply, the result will always be less than what is necessary . Therefore, it is in the interest of each state, especially the developed countries, to redefine how global warming will affect their political and economic interests.

Since climate change is a global problem, it is a problem of the commons, which can be demonstrated through the tragedy of the commons game, similar to the prisoner’s dilemma quadrants. What is specific to the commons in regards to global warming is the effect of time and enough iterations. There will ultimately be a tipping point, where the commons reverts to tragedy and the consequences listed previously, such as mass forced immigration and environmental disasters, will be irreversible. In essence, the goal is to play the game – before it is too late. The commons, viewed through the realist perspective, will focus on the states’ desire to increase their own power, at the expense of combating climate change – thereby, states eliminate themselves in the game by trying to survive. The quest for power will prevail according to the realist perspective. Through the liberal perspective, similar to the process in the prisoner’s dilemma, negotiations can be made through incremental changes in reducing emissions by each state signaling to the other states that they are collaborating or until both actors recognize the common goal and continue until they’ve both lowered emissions to the necessary levels. Finally, the commons in regards to the identity perspective proposes simply analyzing the intentions of other states and whether their decisions will benefit itself or the good of the collective.

The problem of the commons directly applied to addressing and combating global warming is more complex and shows the obvious disagreements between perspectives. As Nau suggests, realists emphasize the scarcity of resources and competition, and individualized solutions, not blanket proposals . A single set of rules will not suffice because it implies a single hegemon will govern. This will fail in the realist perspective due to the states’ unwillingness to give up their own sovereignty and the clear imbalance of power. The realist perspective warrants two options: to consume as much fuel to further economic growth, or if technology to reduce emissions is in demand, to produce more technology to lower emissions and gain economic power that way. In both situations, the main goal is to seek more power. However, if the latter option is emphasized, power can be reconceptualized to include combating global warming. Therefore, lowering emissions and greenhouse gases will be included in the states’ national interest, and will be a rational choice.

The liberal perspective again proposes the use of international institutions to seek broader solutions by emphasizing absolute gains. However, the problem lies in the two groups that gain and lose through cooperation and each group will advocate the use and disregard of said international institutions. The biggest struggle for liberals in proposing international institutions to overcome the collective action problem is to bypass each state’s individual interests for the common goal – this is where the liberal perspective and realist perspective come at direct odds with one another. Identity theorists propose ideas that transcend borders, specifically the idea of sustainable development.
The identity perspective complements both the liberal and realist perspective separately in combating global warming. First, through the realist perspective: changing the idea of national interest and power to conform to the desire to reduce emissions and greenhouse gases by including it into national security policy makes it a possible policy solution. By emphasizing the economic benefits of technological innovation to lower emissions, the state may pursue it as part of its national interest to gain power. Second, through the liberal perspective: ideas are built upon language and language is one of the easiest signals to send in the international arena. To successfully complete or avoid the commons tragedy, each state needs to signal to one another that it is willing to compromise and collaborate. By changing the language and redefining the identity of each states’ goals in regards to global warming, the incremental changes can continue until the goal is reached. Overall, the necessary force to escape the tragedy of the commons is collective action, which is not probable in the near future. Instead, a very plausible alternative is a redefinition of the goal to include national interest and the pursuit of power, incorporating both realist and identity perspectives.

The problem with proposed solutions is the concentration on the liberal perspective and organizing successful international institution and consensus to address the problem. Take, for example, the problem with nuclear disarmament. It has been discussed for years on end and there is still no solution or drastic progress on the proposal. This is because realism prevails over liberal desires to institute global and blanket policies that threaten the balance of power. The liberal perspective in both the commons and the prisoner’s dilemma requires successful signals to continue the incremental changes, but changes in the international arena are clouded and often difficult to interpret. Therefore, global warming, like nuclear disarmament, will not be solved through liberal proposals, or at least, not in the near future. The liberal process is a very long process of action and legitimizing. Unlike nuclear disarmament, global warming is time-sensitive. This is why the Kyoto Protocol, which groups developing countries, or Non-Annex I countries, such as Burkina Faso and China, which have very different emission outputs, together will not succeed. However, the cap and trade proposals already enacted by several cities and countries, which emphasize market incentives and economic benefits, have been relatively more successful. It, again, embeds incentives for power within the national interests, but in an effort to combat a global problem.

The solution must be a fusion of both realist and identity perspectives. The liberal approach to prescribe a blanket solution to all has failed or made minimal progress in the past, as evidenced by the Kyoto Protocol. Waiting for an international institution to find consensus among all states is not a practical solution to a problem that is time sensitive. Similar to the lofty goal of complete disarmament, universal agreement to cut carbon emissions will not come into fruition unless there is an international body that is willing and able to regulate and penalize those who defy the rules. Instead, by reimagining global warming as a security threat to everyone, we change the definition and consequently the identity of the problem to each state. By taking preventative measures now, despite short-term costs, the state will still be acting within its self-interest and continue seeking power, congruous to the realist perspective. It is through these two strategies that states will have a chance against global warming. In a globalizing world, global problems require transnational state cooperation, but this will only be achieved if it is in each states’ national interest.

Globalization, as suggested by Nau, is the process of consolidating into a single global economy (273). Nau uses Thomas Friedman’s The Earth is Flat as the framework for the history of globalization and the shift from absolute power to institutions to individuals (277). However, the working definition of globalization I will be using is a bit different. I will focus on the effects of transport costs under globalization. Reduced transport costs allow cheaper goods to be bought from foreign countries, increasing overall absolute global trade. There are seven distinct areas of policies that a government can enact that directly affect its relationship to the globalized world economy (328), but I will focus exclusively on trade policy and how a state can manipulate trade policy in response to globalization. The decisions on a systemic level result from compromises and resolutions on the domestic level. While globalization has allowed for increased specialization and the division of labor, states still have the ability to control domestic policy in its interest. However, the extent to which a state can respond to international economic pressures is dependent on its capacity and willingness to compromise or be left behind in a globalizing world. The actions of both developed and developing states are ultimately enhanced and constrained, respectively, in a globalized economy.

Since globalization has dramatically decreased transport costs, which has induced high levels of trade, countries are forced to make decisions regarding trade policy often. Trade policy affects the prices of goods and services through taxes, subsidizations or quality restrictions, which can be broken down into two categories: tariffs and non-tariff barriers (332). It is also a border policy, that is, it is a foreign economic policy that only affects goods, services, capital and people as they cross national boundaries (328). This is particularly important because it recognizes the sovereignty of each state and its power to make decisions within its borders and its own country. Tariffs are taxes on goods and services crossing borders such as customs fees and duties, export taxes or subsidies while non-tariff barriers are policies that do not concern price, such as quotas, embargoes or qualitative restrictions (333).

Despite these policy abilities, not all countries have the capacity to enact all of these regulations. The difference in the capacity to implement trade policies is most evident between developed and developing countries. From a realist perspective, which emphasizes relative distribution of power and favorable security conditions, a country may enact a unilateral tariff to secure its alliances or its own hegemony, or use economic sanction such as an embargo to punish adversaries. While a developed country such as the United States has the ability to place an embargo, a trade policy that effectively reduces imports or exports to zero (333), on another country either as a political or economic tool, a developing country such as India may not have the same luxury because the relative cost will be greater. It may risk disengaging from the global economy. The non-tariff barriers, such as quality restrictions, are also constrained by different states’ capacity. Qualitative regulations include restrictions based on the safety, health, labor standards, and environmental concern of traded products (333). Similar to developing countries’ high costs of enacting tariff trade policies, refusing a multinational corporation for low labor standards, for instance, comes at a high cost – possible investment into the country. From a liberal perspective, countries would depend on the strengthening of global rules and institutions that regulate trade policy, such as the World Trade Organization, where security and economic policies are separate and sanctions are not instruments of security policy. Developing countries particularly depend on the function of institutions such as the WTO to limit international payment balances. For example, countries are currently in the ninth round of trade talks, the Doha Round (362). This round of trade talk will eventually influence domestic policy based on agreements during the talk. Countries’ national policies will be coordinated through negotiations during the Doha Round, as they were during the Tokyo Round and the Uruguay Round (361-362). Therefore, all decisions on a domestic level are a compromise between the country’s citizens and the state’s interest in the globalized economy.

Globalization, with its low transport costs, has allowed for increased specialization and the division of labor between many countries. Specialization enables individuals or countries to gain proficiency and be the most effective at their individual task – which paves the way for comparative advantage. This process of specialization and division forms what are called Global Commodity Chains. An example of a well-known GCC is Nike, which distributes its production, marketing and other functions across several countries. Comparative advantage, which is based on relative advantage within a country, is only effective between two countries if they are able to freely specialize then trade their products. Again, domestic governments still have the option to control these trade policies through the mechanisms mentioned above because specialization is predicated on a free market. With the onset of increased market liberalization in the past few decades, there was an increase in specialization and trade based on comparative advantage. From a realist perspective, specialization within a regional bloc, also called geoeconomics, increase its relative power and economic competition. However, from a liberal perspective, free-trade policies and stronger enforcement of trade agreements through international institutions are favored over unilateral decisions such as sanctions. Liberals saw this time of liberalization as an opportunity for non-zero sum gains, or absolute gains, and the strengthening and development of global institutions. Again, there is a wide discrepancy in the ability of developed versus developing countries to react to market liberalization. The cost of a country liberalizing could come at the high cost of not protecting its infant industries, or developing industries that require protection to get started, as several Latin American countries did (351). Realists would support these protectionist policies because they are indifferent to how individuals manage their domestic economic policy and favor the inward-first approach; while, liberals would favor market integration and an outward-first approach. The decision of countries to respond to globalization’s increased specialization is largely dependent on the country’s capacity and relative cost of the decision.

Works Cited

Nau, Henry R. (2009) Perspectives on International Relations, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press Inc.