POSC 2200 – The State, Decision Making and Foreign Policy

1. POSC 2200 – The State, Decision Making and Foreign Policy Russell Alan Williams Department of Political Science

2. Unit Three: The State, Decision Making and Foreign Policy “Thinking Theoretically – State Power & the Decline of the state” Required Reading: • Mingst, Chapter 5 • Krasner, Sovereignty, Mingst and Snyder, pp. 143-149. Outline: • Introduction • Thinking Theoretically – Four views of the state • Bases of State Power • The Decline of the State?

3. 1) Introduction: • Focus on different views of state • How they see the nature of: • State Power • The Decline of the State • Foreign Policy Decesionmaking • Then, focus on Foreign Policy

4. 2) Thinking Theoretically – Four Views of the State: Each theory offers a different view of the state – has implications for thinking about modern states 1) Liberal view: • States seen as an institution – “pluralist arena” • States have sovereignty, not autonomy • State in decline (?) 2) Realist View: • “Statist” – State is seen as an actor in its own right – “state centric” • Predetermined “national interest” • Constrained only by anarchy and the distribution of power

5. 3) Radical view: • State is an agent influenced by dominant class/capitalism • There is no “national interest” per se (in realist terms) • Sovereignty is meaningless – state is subject to the whims of capitalism 4) Constructivist view: • National interests and identities are socially constructed • Evolve and change over time • Shaped by international norms • State seems to be a “pluralist arena” as liberals suggest, but . . .

6. These views play out against understandings of: • State power • The future of the state • Foreign Policy making

7. 3) Basis of State Power: What is “Power”? • Ability to influence others; and, • To produce outcomes that would not have otherwise occurred • States assumed to have power in relation to each other and in relation to actors inside state • Realist notions of state emphasize power, other views critical of some of the assumptions

8. States have “power potential”: • May not always be able to translate this into actual power - Latent • Comes from “natural”, “tangible” and “intangible” resources 1) “Natural” sources of power: a) Geographic size (?), or maybe geographic position (?) b) Natural resources May be determined by geographic size . . . .

9. c) Population – “automatic power potential” However, even having all three of these does not directly translate into power – resources must be used and organized 2) “Tangible” sources of power: a) Industrial Development • Enables military and technological capabilities • Natural factors less important (E.g. Britain) • However states without natural resources are vulnerable over long term b) Military capabilities(?)

10. 3) “Intangible” sources of power: • More consistent with other approaches - “Liberalism” and “Constructivism” a) National image - Does self image promote the use of natural resources for international power? E.g. Canada b) Public Support - High levels of internal support necessary to exercise of power E.g. US during Vietnam War c) Leadership - Well led, bold states better at translating resources into power E.g. Israel (well led) Iraq (poorly led)

11. d) Role of ideas? Constructivism? • E.g. Ideological “hegemony” of western liberalism makes some exercises of state power appropriate and some not

12. 4) The Decline of the State: Modern states face many challenges . . . A) Decline of “sovereignty” norm . . . . B) “Globalization” • Economic • Reduces state control of economic policy (The financial crisis) • Increases risk of Transnational Crime • E.g. The Madoff Scandal (2008) – $26bn (US) lost • Decline of sovereignty in practice • Cultural • Erodes intangible sources of power

13. C) “Transnational Movements”: • Groups of people from different states who share religious, ideological, or policy beliefs and work together to change status quo • E.g. “Non Governmental Organizations” • Challenge role of state as representative of citizens in international politics • E.g. Anti-Globalization movement • E.g. “Islamic Fundamentalism”: • Believers within Islam who oppose secular states and seek to enforce conformity with a stricter interpretation of Islam

14. Challenge existing governments and relations amongst states • Challenge existing “statist” foreign policy • E.g. Iranian Revolution and hostages • Challenge monopoly of force held by states • E.g. Terrorism

15. D) “Ethnonational Movements” E) “Supranationalism”: • Voluntary transfer of state power to supranational institutions • E.g. The EU Result: A bleak future for the state?

16. Stephen Krasner – “Sovereignty” Sovereign state not dead, or even in decline (?) • Remains dominant actor in IR = Realist argument? Claims: • Sovereignty was never “autonomy” - Not that much has changed • Support for intn’l rights over sovereignty is not new . . . • Globalization does not equal less state control; it means different kinds of control • State activity as % of economy has grown • NGO’s influence is limited • EU “Supranationalism” is unique Most importantly: States and nations still want it!!!!

17. 5) For Next Time . . . Unit Three: The State, Decision Making and Foreign Policy “Foreign Policy” Required Reading: • Mingst, Chapter 5 • Krasner, Sovereignty, Mingst and Snyder, pp. 143-149.