Realism and Liberalism in Contemporary International Relations

1. Realism and Liberalism in Contemporary International Relations PO 201: Introduction to International Studies and Political Science

2. Modern Variants on the Traditional Views • We have seen that the two traditional theoretical frameworks of IR differ mainly on three points: human nature, the ways in which humans overcome the state of nature in the domestic realm, and the capacity of states to overcome the state of nature in the international realm • Today, we expand our discussion to include the intricate ways in which more modern “takes” on realism and liberalism theorize about IR

3. The Neorealist Refinement • In Theory of International Politics, Kenneth Waltz constructs a strictly structural view of action and reaction in the international system • Centers on the classical realist state goal of survival • Since survival is the ultimate goal, Waltz contends (unlike Morgenthau) that the quest for power is a means to an end, and not an end unto itself (what changes does this conceptualization result in?) • Power is thus necessary and sufficient for survival; it is the nature of the “self-help” system that makes this so (Hobbesian)

4. The Neorealist Refinement • Waltz’s structural formulation treats all action (in any system) as resulting from the necessities of the system • All systems are defined by the principles according to which they are ordered and the differentiation of the composite units • When the ordering principle of any system changes, so too does the system • If there is any differentiation amongst composite units, there must be a hierarchy • These last considerations, when taken together, are extremely important to the neorealist (or “structural realist”) study of IR • The initial ordering principle of the international system is anarchy • However, since the only important means of differentiation in the “self-help” system is power capabilities, anarchy is unlikely to persist for long • Thus, the international system is hierarchically structured based on the distribution of capabilities; when the interstate distribution of capabilities changes, so does the hierarchy and, therefore, so does the system itself

5. The Neorealist Refinement • How does this view differ from the traditional realist formulation? • Individual and national level explanations of IR are intriguing, but unnecessary (“streamlining” realism) • Why would human nature matter? How would a study of the foreign policies of states – since their goals are always the same – lend additional power to a structural theory? Since the only important differentiation is capabilities, the nature of individuals (e.g., good or evil) and the nature of polities (e.g., democratic or autocratic) are not important determinants of state action in IR • Anarchy is never truly the international state of affairs • Hierarchy prevails based on capability distribution; hierarchies can change, changing with it both the system and the necessities of surviving in it • This means that no state “seeks” a unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar system of balanced capabilities; such structures just emerge as a result of efforts to survive in a “self-help” system. The balance of power is thus not a goal of states, but an outcome • Waltz’s “reductionist” formulation leads to some interesting conclusions about which international structures are “safest” • An important way by which to ensure survival is to use external means to acquire power (alliances) • However, since others are concerned only about their own survival, alliances can be risky (loss of sovereignty=diminished capacity to survive) • Structures that reduce the necessity of alliance are therefore safest; since a bipolar system involving two very powerful states minimizes the need for alliances, it is safer (at least in terms of major power conflict) than all others

6. The Neoliberal Refinement • Keohane and Nye begin by focusing on the role of complex interdependence in world affairs • No state in the international system is truly independent; every state has some set of transaction-based relationships with every other • Power – who gets what – is determined by relative degrees of dependence and interdependence within relationships and the nature of what is transacted • Control over outcomes is determined by a form of asymmetrical interdependence, based in part on the relative importance of what kind of transactions constitute the relationship (e.g., if State A is “dependent” upon State B for oil imports, and State B is “dependent” upon State A for perfume imports, it is likely that State B enjoys a measure of power of State A [Why?]) • There are also more nuanced considerations of how dependent and interdependent states actually are • Sensitivity interdependence: A dependent state is “sensitive” to adverse changes in the relationship, but is likely able to cope despite disruptions (e.g., State A being able to replace oil exports with domestic production) • Vulnerability interdependence: A dependent state is wholly “vulnerable” to adverse changes in the relationship (e.g., State A being unable to replace oil exports with domestic production)

7. The Neoliberal Refinement • This formulation allows both for conflicts of interest even in mutually beneficial relationships (unlike classical liberalism’s simplistic focus on the good by-products of trade) and the likelihood that asymmetric “vulnerability” leads to conflict – would seem to be somewhat pro-realist • However, Keohane and Nye’s thesis of interdependence stipulates that the assumptions of realism do not stand up to scrutiny in the post-World War II era

8. The Neoliberal Refinement • Realist Assumption 1: States are the dominant actors in world affairs • K&N: Wrong! There are multiple “channels” of contact other than the state (firms, bureaucrats, terrorists, etc.); each has their own interests, and make policies in one state sensitive to policies in others • Realist Assumption 2: Force is a consistently useable instrument in world affairs • K&N: Wrong again! Social and economic forces, concerns of appropriateness in achieving goals, nuclear weapons have all diminished the “employability” of force • Realist Assumption 3: There exists an international hierarchy of issues, dominated by security concerns • K&N: Nope! There are many issues on countries’ agendas, many of which cannot today be subordinated to military security. This situation is exacerbated in democratic societies, where the definition of a national interest is made difficult by pluralism, economic concerns, and sensitivities to the domestic policies of other states

9. The Neoliberal Refinement • Thus, interdependence, by making states vulnerable or sensitive to others, combines with the decline of traditional security concerns to construct an interesting IR scenario • State goals vary by issue and are effected by non-state actors • Issue-specific agendas are set by states/actors that have resource advantages within the issue; the inapplicability of force usage means that militarily strong states will sometimes lose (unable to link issues to power hierarchy) [Example: US and OPEC] • International organizations benefit this setup; they are arenas for political action by militarily weaker states/actors, who use them to set agendas and reinforce their power in specific issue areas

10. The “Neos” Recapped • Waltz’ structural realism is similar in many ways to the classical realist view, but differs in that: • It renders human nature and how polities are formed irrelevant (contra Machiavelli and Hobbes) • It systematically challenges the assumption of anarchy • It “reduces” state action to an inherently individualistic attempt to survive (balance of power as a result, not a plan) • It determines the relative safety and danger of particular structures • Keohane and Nye’s “complex interdependence” is similar to the classical liberal view in that it directly challenges the realist notions of state independence and the role of force, but differs in that: • It vastly refines the classical view of how anarchy can be overcome (more nuanced view of the effects of democracy) • It systematically shows that non-violent interactions like trade are not simply beneficial to both parties; they are also the basis for power asymmetries • It provides an interdependence-based explanation for how international organizations impact international dealings

11. International Politics – Conclusion • Major differences in classical theoretical traditions • Realism: Human nature (bad) and state of nature (anarchy) → mistrust and importance of power → security dilemma → war • Liberalism: Human nature (good) overcomes state of nature (anarchy) in social contract; international collection of social contracts → peace (reinforcing role of trade and IOs) • Major refinements of “neo” theories