Approaching IP; Classical Realism Lec . 2: Thursday, 10 February 2011 J. A. Morrison

1. Approaching IP; Classical Realism Lec. 2: Thursday, 10 February 2011 J. A. Morrison

2. Frontespiece to Leviathan, 1651.

3. Admin • Sign-in on attendance sheets • Did you read the course site & policies? • Trouble getting books? Eres? • Remember: Class rescheduling! • No class next Thursday (17 Feb) • Lecture: Wednesday (16 Feb), 6:00 PM • Discussion: Monday (21 Feb), 6:00, 6:50, & 7:40 PM

4. Brace yourselves! Today’s lecture is going to be a bit abstract at points.

5. Part I. Approaching IP • The scientific study of IP • Theories of IP: Old and new views • Classical Realism

6. Part I. Approaching IP • The scientific study of IP • Theories of IP: Old and new views • Classical Realism

7. Here, we study Political Science as a “Science.”What does it mean to study international politics “scientifically”?

8. Scientific study relies on the empirical testing of models to explain the relationship between variables.

9. Variables •  Factors of interest that may vary in value • May be continuous, discrete, or a “dummy” (1/0) • Examples • Volume of trade (continuous) • Type of Exchange Rate Regime (discrete) • Status of membership in Int’l Organization (dummy)

10. Theories and Models • Specify relationship between variables • Value of independent (or “explanatory”) variable explains dependent variable • E.g. Type of exchange rate regime (IV) explains the volume of trade (DV) • May be correct or incorrect (i.e. may or may not comport with reality) • Endogenous: determined within the model • Exogenous: determined outside of the model

11. Facts • Descriptions of reality • For our purposes, statements about the value of variables • May be correct or incorrect • Examples: • Hong Kong has a fixed exchange rate (correct) • The volume of world trade has increased since 1945 (correct) • The United States has a fixed exchange rate regime (incorrect)

12. Empirical Tests • Theories/Models lead to testable hypotheses • E.g. Fixed exchange rate regimes lead to greater volumes of trade. • Hypotheses are predictions about the value of variables • We test hypotheses by comparing predictions to observed reality • Do we observe that countries with fixed exchange rate regimes have greater volumes of trade than countries with flexible exchange rate regimes?

13. Correlation ≠ Causation • Correlation: the values of two variables vary together • BUT • Spurious correlation: exogenous variable determines both of our variables • E.g. Rain causes both worse attendance and more umbrellas to be brought to class • Or causality may be reversed • E.g. High trade volumes lead to fixed exchange rate regimes (rather than vice versa).

14. “The United States has a greater share of the world’s military power today than any country has had in the past.” It is a statement about a single variable: the share of military power the US presently enjoys. Empirical statement or theory?

15. “The United States is able to compel countries to (reluctantly) aid it in the war on terror.” It is a statement about a single variable: the ability of the US to compel cooperation abroad. Empirical statement or theory?

16. “The United States’ overwhelming military power has enabled it to compel foreign countries to (reluctantly) aid it in the war on terror.” It is an explanation of the relationship between two variables. Empirical statement or theory?

17. How to Challenge Scientific Explanation: - Challenge Empirics: Dispute the facts; introduce contradictory facts • Challenge Theory: Offer alternative explanation of causal relationship between variables • Or some combination of the two…

18. Writing is more Art than Science • Know your audience • Which claims need argument? Which can be taken for granted? • Moderate the Scope for the Space Available • Well-executed but narrow attacks  boring • Overly-ambitious contentions  unpersuasive

19. Part I. Approaching IP • The scientific study of IP • Theories of IP: Old and new views • Classical Realism

20. All of this is common to good political science: theories explaining empirics.

21. And we have different scholars running around with different theories about their “facts.” • Krasner: Distribution of Power  Economic Openness • Jervis: Balance between Offense & Defense  Bellicosity • Gowa: Security Arrangements  Economic Integration

22. But how does the landscape of IP theories look?If we were to map prominent IP theories based on their similarities and differences, how would that map look?

23. Would there be several large clumps of theories?Or would the theories be smoothly distributed?

24. Answering these questions used to be easy. But we’re in the middle of a major revolution in how we study and teach international politics…

25. How to Categorizing IP Theories • “Old School” – The “-isms” • Bulk of theories can be easily categorized into one of several distinct categories • Arguments are frequently developed to advance/defend a “school” • “Cutting Edge” – Theory by Theory • Theories cannot be easily grouped together • Each theory should be unpacked on its own terms Note that “Old School” and “Cutting Edge” are my terms developed for this lecture. They are not widely accepted jargon in the field.

26. II. Theories of IP: Old and new views Old school Cutting edge Conclusion

27. The “old school” view is old;and it is about “schools.”

28. The Old School View • Schools are research programs • Each school has “hard core” tenets • Variation is in supporting arguments and “minor” assumptions • Three major schools • Realism (classical and “neo”) • Liberalism (classical and “neo” or “institutional”) • Constructivism • Concern with level of analysis

29. Levels of Analysis • The question: “Where do the most important causes of outcomes in IP originate?” • Several potential levels • International system: distribution of power; norms/patterns; international institutions • States: domestic political forces & institutions determine foreign policy • Individuals: psychology; perception; idiosyncrasy

30. II. Theories of IP: Old and new views Old school Cutting edge Conclusion

31. Cutting Edge Framework • Actors… • Have preferences • Face constraintsand enjoy opportunities created byinstitutions • Rely on ideasto maximize preferences • “Levels of analysis” are combined; attempt to factor in all influences

32. Actors’ Preferences • Preferences are policy makers’ rates of trade-off between possible outcomes • E.g. independence versus costs of war • E.g. inflation rate versus unemployment rate • Preferences are shaped by norms, personal interests & values

33. Constraints and Opportunities • Some things simply are not possible • E.g. Establishing viable colony on Jupiter • Many things possible at some cost • Canada may compel Vermonters to help invade Greenland at some cost • Constraints and Opportunities are product of domestic and int’l circumstances

34. Actors have Ideas • Ideas are understandings of: • (1) Constraints and Opportunities (C&O) • (2) Rates of trade-off in these C&O • Policymakers use ideas as “road maps” to maximize preferences given C&O • Some ideas are right; some are wrong • Right: JFK was right about Khrushchev • Wrong: Hitler was wrong about Chamberlain • Experience, intellectuals, other actors  ideas

35. Cutting Edge View of IP Theories • Take each small theory on its own terms • Unpack relevant actors, constraints, and ideas • Theories offer wide variation along these several dimensions

36. II. Theories of IP: Old and new views Old school Cutting edge Conclusion

37. All good IP analysis attempts to explain the relationship between variables using theories.

38. But there is an important question: can we organize all of these different theories into clear, distinct categories?

39. Traditional approach says, “Yes—into 3 schools: realism, liberalism, and constructivism.”

40. New approach says, “No—there is more difference than similarity; and the ‘schools’ issue is a distraction from taking theories one at a time.”

41. This question matters because much of what you’ll read this term is influenced by this timely debate.

42. Will this tension be resolved? • “Founders” themselves disagree • Mearsheimer: Constructivism is fundamentally different from realism. • Wendt: I started with your assumptions and changed just one variable to construct my theories.

43. What approach will we take?  Both. Why choose when you don’t have to?

44. How we’ll Do it • Syllabus is organized around schools • Present schools • Read classics • But in lecture and discussion, we’ll take each theory on its own terms • And we’ll examine whether there might be tenets around which schools are organized

45. Part I. Approaching IP • The scientific study of IP • Theories of IP: Old and new views • Classical Realism

46. The classical realists elucidated some of the key issues in international politics.They also staked out some of the “classic” premises of realism.

47. III. Classical Realism Morality & Power Anarchy Competing interests

48. The first question in international politics is simple: What should states be allowed to do? What is permissible in the international system?

49. “[R]ight…is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” -- The Athenians in “The Melian Dialogue,” from Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War. (431 BC)

50. Classical realists offer a simple response:Anything they can do.  Might makes right.