POSC 2200 – Theoretical Approaches

1. POSC 2200 – Theoretical Approaches Russell Alan Williams Department of Political Science

2. Unit Two: Theoretical Approaches “Liberalism: Idealism – Institutionalism” Required Reading: • Globalization of World Politics, Chapters 5, 6 and 7. • Liberalism: Michael Doyle, “Liberalism and World Politics”, American Political Science Review, 80 (4), pp. 1151-69.(Excerpt available from the instructor). Outline: • Introduction to Liberalism • Key Assumptions • Conclusions • For Next Time

3. 1) Introduction to Liberalism: • Most popular modern approach? • “International Political Economy” vs. Security???? • Supported by: • Leading states, IO’s and MNC’s • Most scholars • Key Thinkers: • Kant & Locke – Enlightenment thought • Wilson • Keohane

4. Liberalism is messy . . . less continuity than in realist tradition • Modern Liberalism arose out of dissatisfaction with“idealism”, but continuing hostility to “realism” . . . =Approach often defined in opposition to “realism” - starting point is where realists have “gone wrong”: 1) “Anarchy”is not descriptively accurate • Institutions/“norms”/laws exist in IR - More cooperation than expected 2) States are not actors in the way realists understand • Domestic politics - internal bargaining impact what states “do”

5. 3)Military power is not as “fungible” as assumed: • Realist notion of “power” flawed a) Emphasis on military“capabilities”overdone b) Power is not material = ability to influence and achieve objectives is what matters 4) Most liberals suspicious of realism’s militarism and lack of normative goals • Liberals believe war is abnormal and should be avoided at all costs

6. 2) Key Assumptions A) Humans are basically good . . . • Societal progress comes from cooperation = Need for institutions and conditions that reduce conflict • Common theme = Conflict comes from bad institutions and lack of rules • “Harmony of Interests”: • E.g. Liberal support for free trade – individual choice, and the free market reduce potential for conflict. • Support “individualism” • Liberals see a world of “Absolute Gains” – cooperation can make everyone better off

7. 2) Key Assumptions B) “Identity” of a state matters! • Internal political structures, societal values etc. impact both how a state behaves and how others see it. • E.g. the “Democratic Peace”?

8. 2) Key Assumptions B) “Identity” of a state matters! • Internal political structures, societal values etc. impact both how a state behaves and how others see it. • E.g. the “Democratic Peace”? • No two democracies have gone to war with one another • Democracies are more likely to fight wars with non-democracies(?) • “Hotly debated”, but factually true . . . A real problem for “neorealism”since it should not matter.

9. Michael Doyle & the “Democratic Peace” How do we explain the odd mix of aggression and non aggression by democratic states? “Republican Liberalism”: Democratic institutions and values mean democracies act differently than other states • Voters don’t vote for imperialist adventure, but they will fight for democracy . . . . “Commercial Liberalism”: Democratic states support interdependence and globalization – this ties them together and makes it costly for them to not cooperate with one another • Bottom line – domestic institutions matter . . . .

10. 2) Key Assumptions C) International institutions/organizations can provide order, peace and prosperity • Two liberal approaches: 1) Traditional “Idealism”: • Based on Enlightenment ideas about harmony of interests and horrors of WWI, early liberals sought to establish “rules” for international politics, to reduce the role of “power” and the “security dilemma” • Cooperation would come from shared beliefs about how states SHOULD act . . .

11. “Idealism” is most closely associated with Woodrow Wilson • “Fourteen Points”: • Support for “Self Determination”/end to empires. • End secret diplomacy • Establishment of the League of Nations • = “Collective Security” instead of the “balance of power”

12. What happened to “Wilsonian” Idealism? • “Collective Security” of the League of Nations failed within 20 years . . . . • Many powers were either unhappy with the status quo, or never took principles seriously. • The U.S. refused to play leadership role, and pursued its own interests. > > > Lost support after start of WWII – states would not simply do what was politically “right” – though many think “idealism” is back(!)

13. 2) Key Assumptions C) International institutions, organizations, regimes can provide order, peace and prosperity • Two liberal approaches: 2) “Neoliberal Institutionalism”: Contemporary approach to liberalism • “Neoliberalism” = Normative economic policy support for capitalism and free markets • “Institutionalism” = Analytical belief institutions can help overcome “relative gains” • Robert Keohane (1980’s) – attempted to merge realism with evidence of cooperation

14. India preference = DC>CC>DD>CD • Pakistan preference = CD>CC>DD>DC • Realism: If both states are rational, fear of cheating and “relativegains” leads to equilibrium at (D,D) • Key Point: Rational self interest makes cooperation difficult • = But, both states worse off then they could be . . .

15. Neoliberal Institutionalists argue that (C,C) is often equilibrium - Why? • “Iteration” - repeated interaction increase likelihood of cooperation (you can’t afford a bad reputation) • 2) Institutions – reduce fear of cheating (E.g. Surveillance & dispute resolution)

16. “Neoliberal Institutionalism” – key insights: • Same assumptions of realism leads to different conclusion • Cooperation less difficult than expected • States can seek “absolute gains” instead of “relative gains” • States can accept situations where others may gain more then them, as long as they gain as well!!! • Most cited example is free trade . . . . • Institutions and international organizations matter! • Trade “Regime” - World Trade Organization (WTO) encourages states to support globalization • UN and “collective security”? • States increasingly support ideal because it is in their interest, not because they they “should” • E.g. Iraq invasion of Kuwait (1990)

17. 3) Conclusions - Liberalism: Liberalism sees a world of more than just states . . . . A) States – “Neoliberal institutionalism” almost as “statist” as realism • Other liberals pay significant attention to substate actors – E.g. “Republican Liberals” C) International Organizations – major distinction between realism and liberalism D) Non-Governmental Organizations E) Multinational Corporations

18. 3) Conclusions - Liberalism: • View of individual: Humans are highly cooperative – need correct institutional environment to advance society = Democracy and free markets • View of state: Not unitary, and not necessarily rational • However, major differences within liberalism . . . . • Neo-liberalism vs. Democratic Peace Liberals • View of international system: Governed by anarchy, but: • “Globalisation” changes things! • Self interest = potential for international laws, rules, values and norms • E.g. It is possible to reduce importance of anarchy

19. 5) Conclusions: Strengths: • Increasing relevance to current world • Fukuyama’s “End of History” • Liberal democracy increasingly the norm = basis of sovereignty(?) • Interstate war morally unacceptable, increasingly uncommon • Focus on economic cooperation = globalisation • Focus on domestic politics = seems more “realistic”

20. Weaknesses: • Confusion! • Many variables, units of analysis . . . • Major differences within theory . . . • The shadow of the past . . . • Liberalism has been dominant before, only to fail miserably • Perhaps the world will change again? • Are interdependence and globalisation a permanent trend? • Is interstate war a thing of the past?

21. 6) For Next Time . . . Unit Two: Theoretical Approaches September 24 & 26: “Alternative Approaches” Required Reading: • Globalization of World Politics, Chapters 8, 9, 10 and 16. • Vladimir Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Chapter VII, “Imperialism as a Special stage of Capitalism”(Available from the instructor) • Alexander Wendt, “Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics,”International Organization, Vol. 46(2), (Spring 1992), Pp. 391-425. (Excerpt available from the instructor.)