1 / 14

Liberalism & “Radical” Theories

Liberalism & “Radical” Theories. John Lee Department of Political Science Florida State University. Liberalism. States are not unitary actors ( Moravcsik 1997).

dani
Download Presentation

Liberalism & “Radical” Theories

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Liberalism & “Radical” Theories John Lee Department of Political Science Florida State University

  2. Liberalism • States are not unitary actors (Moravcsik 1997). • Interdependence – “a situation in which the behavior of international actors greatly aaffects others with whom they have contact, making all parties mutually sensitive and vulnerable to the others' actions (Kegley 2006, 284).“ • International institutions can prevent war (UN Article 2.4 forbids threat/use of force). • Democratic Peace – More later

  3. Radical Theories • Larger focus on history?? • Constructivism - World is complicated no overarching theory possible. • “The major theoretical position that all constructivists subscribe to is that state behavior is shaped by elite beliefs, identities, and social norms. Individuals in collectivities forge, shape, and change culture through ideas and practices. State and national interests are the result of the social identities of these actors. Thus, the object of study is the norms and practices of individuals and the collectivity, with no distinction made between domestic politics and international politics (Mingst 75).” • How does education influence future leaders?

  4. Rationalism • “Rationalism seems to refer variously to formal and informal applications of rational choice theory to IR questions, to any work drawing on the tradition of microeconomic theory…or most broadly to any ‘positivist’ exercise in explaining foreign policy by reference to goal-seeking behavior (Fearon & Wendt 2002, 54).” • Positivism – focus on logical theories with testable/falsifiable implications, empirical support should be found.

  5. Rationalism v Constructivism • Rationalism is from bottom-up. • Constructivism is from top-down. • Both are approaches not theories (see realism and liberalism) which are purported to explain every aspect of every interaction in international politics at any given time.

  6. Democratic Peace • Are democracies less likely to fight one another? • Democracies may be less likely to fight one another, but they attack non-democracies at the same rate as all other states.

  7. Why Democratic Peace? • Normative Causes – Democratic Governments are built on compromise. Thus, when democracies interact with other democracies they are likely to compromise. • Democracies still attack non-democracies because these states do not compromise. Thus, democracies must act accrodingly.

  8. Why Democratic Peace? • Structural Causes • It takes time for a democracy to go to war (declaration of war, etc). Thus, two democracies can compromise before they actually go to war. • Democracies fight non-democracies because there is less time to make compromise.

  9. Selectorate Theory • Selectorate- The individuals who could potentially decide who the leader of the country is. • Winning Coalition - Those members of the selectorate responsible for the leader’s position of power. • States provide two types of goods: • Public Goods - Goods and services available to the selectorate. • Private Goods – Goods and services available exclusively to the winning coalition.

  10. Selectorate Theory - Assumptions • Leaders with large winning coalitions provide public goods. • Leaders with small winning coalitions provide private goods. • All leaders desire to stay in office. ** • Defeat in war is a negative public good.

  11. Selectorate Theory - Predictions • Since all leaders desire to stay in office and wars represent a negative public good, and leaders of states with large winning coalitions provide public goods we expect that these leaders will be more selective in the wars they choose to fight. • On the other hand, since leaders of states with small winning coalitions provide private goods to their winning coalitions they are unconcerned with the possibility of losing a war. What will their winning coalition care if a war is lost…the leader will still provide with private benefits

  12. Democratic Peace? • Gartzke (2007) suggests that economic development, free markets, and interest similarity explain democratic peace.

More Related