International Relations: Approaches, Issues and Analysis Lecture 3: Contemporary IR

1
International Relations Approaches, Issues and
AnalysisLecture 3 Contemporary IR

• Jevgenia Viktorova
• University of St Andrews
• E-mail jv2 ät st-and.ac.uk

2
Contemporary IR

• Theoretical developments
• pluralist response to classical behavioural
  realism
• neorealism
• neoliberalism and (neo)liberal institutionalism
• the neo-neo synthesis
• Concepts and issues international system
  revisited norms, regimes, economic
  interdependence, international organisations

3
Pluralism

• a strand of liberal thought
• political developments of the 1960-70s which
  questioned the validity of the realist view of
  IR
• the post-1962 détente in superpower relationships
• Vietnam war
• the growing volume of sub-state transnational
  economic relations
• the emergence of MNCs
• emergence of the European supranationalism
• Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye (1971)
  Transnational Relations and World Politics

4
Pluralist insights

• Acknowledgement of the influence of non-state
  actors (IGOs, NGOs, economic and non-state
  political actors)
• Blurring distinction between
• high politics (high-level relations between
  states) and
• low politics (internal socio-economic issues)
• Realisation that low politics affects the
  international sphere

5
Pluralist theory

• Keohane and Nye, Power and Interdependence (1977)
  tried to theorise the observed changes
• complex interdependence
• differences from the realist account
• pluralism advanced the idea of multiple channels
  of interaction between societies
• suggested that for most types of international
  relationships force will not be of primary
  importance
• denied a clear hierarchy of issues

6
Innovations of pluralism

• Realism can adequately describe only one type of
  international relationships
• Need for a broad view of power and its sources
  economic social etc.
• Weakness in one area may be compensated by
  strengths in other areas
• the power of agenda-setting
• any issue can be of importance on the
  international arena
• Bachrach and Baratz (1970) the power of
  non-decision

7
Challenges to pluralism

• In the mid-1970s, no serious challenge from
  realists
• critique came from structuralist scholars
• pluralists were modelling a rich mans world
• interdependence limited to the developed West
• in the rest of the world, dependence of one
  group of countries upon another reflected global
  imbalances in wealth and power
• Serious challenge from realism came in 1979 with
  Kenneth Waltzs Theory of International Politics

8
Theory of International Politics

• Revitalised the realist agenda
• Emphasis on the system-level of analysis 3rd
  image of realism
• Waltzs Man, the State and War (1959) offered
  three images of realism
• war caused by the nature of man (i.e. bad
  people)
• war caused by the nature of states (i.e. bad
  states)
• war arising from the anarchic structure of the
  international system (i.e. there is nothing to
  stop bad people and states).

9
Structural realism

• The character of the international system
  determines the nature and behaviour of its
  constituent units not vice versa
• The system is anarchical ? anarchy dictates
  certain behaviour from states
• no supreme authority ? self-help
• survival and security, predicated on the pursuit
  of power, become the most legitimate policy
  objectives under anarchy
• structural realism ? structuralist IR
  approaches (which are Marxist in origin)

10
Rational choice theory

• Popular among American Political Science scholars
• offered a scientific framework for the pursuit
  of neorealist research agenda (cf. merger
  between classical realism and behaviouralism)
• goal-directed behaviour of individuals
• rational, i.e. based on ends-means calculations
  
• to maximise gains and minimise losses
• methods borrowed from economics from game
  theory, statistical techniques (e.g. regression
  analysis)
• neo-utilitarianism
• mostly limited to the US (corresponding to
  American individualism and presumptions of
  rationality)

11
Waltzs realist theory

• Waltzs work as a response to pluralism
• restricted the scope of realist theory
• defined theory in narrow terms, as a complex of
  law-like regularities and propositions
• approach derived from Karl Poppers philosophy of
  science (another version of positivism)
• Waltz acknowledged that in IR, testing cannot
  meet strict scientific standards
• theory is about discovering the regularities of
  international politics as they are out there
  with all possible scientific rigour

12
A theory of international system

• restricts the scope of theory to international
  system
• impossible to understand the international system
  through unit-level theories that would amount to
  reductionism
• IR theory should be focus on the systemic level
• International system can be anarchical or
  hierarchical
• Structure of the system defines both the
  relationships between the units and their nature
  
• in a hierarchical system units of different kinds
  will be organised in a hierarchical order
• in an anarchical system, units must be
  structurally similar (although their capabilities
  may vary)

13
Waltzs response to pluralism

• International system is still anarchical, nothing
  had changed with the advent of interdependence
• pluralist findings concerned changes at the unit
  level, not the system as such
• The realist ground will only possibly be shaken
  with an advent of a world government of some kind

14
System polarity

• Waltzs theory is also centred on
  balance-of-power
• Balances of power can be defined according to the
  number of poles in the balance
• These poles are states that have the capacity
  seriously to threaten each others survival
• How many poles are best for the continued balance
  of the international system?
• Post-Cold War shift in system polarity
• bipolar to multipolar or weak unipolar?

15
The balance-of-power problem

• Balance of power is by no means an inevitable
  effect of the system
• whether a balance-of-power is created or not
  depends on whether the states cooperate to this
  end
• Waltz argues that states create balances of power
  despite themselves
• not acting on the signals that the
  international system sends to states may
  undermine their security and survival.
• analogy is derived from micro-economics the
  pressures on the firm in a free market situation

16
Meanings of balance-of-power

• Martin Wight explores this tension between the
  explanatory and normative aspects of
  balance-of-power
• balance of power can have at least 9 distinct
  meanings, apart from the two crucial uses as a
  system of foreign policy and a theoretical
  principle used for analysis
• an even distribution of power
• the principle that power should be evenly
  distributed
• the existing distribution of power (or any
  possible distribution of power)

17
Meanings of balance-of-power

• the principle of equal aggrandisement of the
  Great Powers at the expense of the weak
• the principle that our side ought to have a
  margin of strength in order to avert the danger
  of power becoming unevenly distributed
• a special role in maintaining an even
  distribution of power
• a special advantage in the existing distribution
  of power
• predominance
• an inherent tendency of international politics to
  produce an even distribution of power.

18
Waltzs legacy

• Contemporary realist IR influenced by Waltzs
  work
• Critics from other perspectives also took it
  seriously enough to respond to it (e.g. Wendts
  Social Theory of International Politics)
• A structural view of the international system has
  generated a split between offensive and
  defensive realisms

19
Defensive realism

• e.g. Stephen Walt, Jack Snyder
• states attain security in the anarchical system
  by accumulating an appropriate amount of power in
  balance with others
• excessive amount of power may lessen security
• by setting off the dynamics of a security dilemma
• Clausewitz and de Certeau on power of the weak
• the international system rewards states
  maintaining a status quo not those with the
  ambition to dominate

20
Offensive realism

• e.g. John Mearsheimer
• security is evasive, power difficult to measure
• states do not know when their power is sufficient
  
• are driven to accumulate as much power and
  capabilities as possible
• this leads them to pursue aggressive,
  expansionist policies
• the objective is to become a regional, if not
  global, hegemon

21
Neoliberalism

• Pluralists of 1970s ? liberal institutionalists
  in the 1980-90s
• approximated neorealism by accepting two of its
  fundamental principles
• the anarchic structure of the international
  system
• the rational egoism of states
• took on board a range of methodological
  approaches associated with realism (such as
  rational choice and game theories)
• Kept a liberal focus of research
• the possibilities for inter-state cooperation

22
Innovations of neoliberalism

• Cooperation in the context of anarchy will be
  fragile
• free-rider states (those that share benefits of
  cooperation without contributing to its costs)
  undermine the legitimacy of cooperation for those
  who do meet the costs
• prisoners dilemma a game-theoretical concept
  models the difficulty of relying on promises of
  cooperation in situations where enforcement was
  impossible
• Focus on international institutions
• Liberal institutionalism

23
Liberal institutionalism

• International institutions as the core concept
  and phenomenon
• Institutions are enduring sets of norms, rules
  and expected patterns of behaviour
• institutions are neither epiphenomenal nor merely
  tools of the powerful
• Investing power into international institutions
  is rational and egoistic, since gains from
  institutions include
• facilitating activities that are beneficial to
  states (e.g. trade)
• easing the risks of tricky negotiations (e.g.
  over arms control)

24
Regimes

• Regime another central concept of
  neoliberalism
• existing or possible frameworks for cooperation
  based on exchange of information and formalised
  commitments (e.g. international agreements and
  treaties or accepted rules of the game, such as
  diplomatic practices)
• the procedural effects of institutions a
  climate created by the existence and
  functioning of institutions
• increase the stability and predictability of
  behaviour of states under anarchy
• enhance cooperation prospects and returns

25
Hegemonic stability theory

• A key in establishing most of the existing
  regimes (especially in IPE) is a hegemonic power
  
• a hegemon is a state that has willingness and
  the ability to establish rules of action in the
  international sphere and enforce them
• The US has acted as a hegemon after WWII
• By 1980s, its hegemonic power has declined
• Can cooperation continue after hegemony?
• at sub-optimal levels
• living off the capital accumulated under hegemony

26
Gains from cooperation

• relative vs. absolute gains
• Neoliberals emphasise absolute gains
• as long as a state is getting rewards from
  cooperation it does not matter if a neighbouring
  state is doing better
• Liberal trade theory
• parties comparative advantage from trade may be
  different
• importantly, they all still gain something

27
Gains from cooperation

• Neorealists focus on relative gains
• assume that states will be interested not only in
  how well they are doing but also how well others
  are doing
• This stems from the focus on the balance of power
• States gauge their action based on the relative
  distribution of power in the international system
• any changes in relative wealth and power will
  affect state behaviour and, consequently, the
  dynamics of cooperation.
• The question for realists is how to get
  cooperation going
• states would only be prepared to meet the costs
  of cooperation if every one of them can
  reasonably expect to gain more (or at least as
  mush) as any other participating state

28
Weak vs. strong institutionalism

• Agree that institutions and regimes
• facilitate transparency
• reduce transaction costs and the likelihood of
  cheating (free-riding)
• ? states will create rules and abide by them, and
  maintain them even is that may become costly
• Differ in how they explain the maintenance of
  institutions in sub-optimal conditions

29
Weak vs. strong institutionalism

• Weak institutionalism highlights
• path dependence
• longer-term interests in the benefits of law and
  institutions
• sunk costs
• Strong institutionalism draws attention to the
  process by which states incentives are
  restructured as a result of their participation
  in institutions

30
Strong institutionalism

• Institutions serve to create new forms of
  commonality through the experience of cooperation
• This changes participants perceptions of
  themselves and their interests
• Institutions affect actors social identity
• Interests are seen as defined by this identity
• e.g. national interests are not given but
  rather produced through the experiences of
  interactions
• approximates social constructivism not a
  necessary part of neoliberal theories

31
Neo-neo synthesis

• a rapprochement between neorealism and
  neoliberalism
• neo-neo synthesis
• A significant influence of realism, but also an
  input from liberal institutionalism
• e.g. Barry Buzans concept of mature anarchy
  in parts of the international system, anarchy is
  qualitatively different from how it is envisaged
  in the pessimistic classical realist view
• this difference has come about as a result of
  institutionalised cooperation practices that
  changed states expectations and perceptions of
  what is acceptable in international relations