Realism: Major Actors and Assumptions

1
Realism Major Actors and Assumptions

• Based on four key assumptions
• 1.States are the principal actors and most
  important actors. States are the key unit of
  analysis. The study of IR is the study of
  relations among these units.
• Why? Because only the state, given its claim to
  sovereignty, possesses the monopoly of legitimate
  force to resolve conflicts between individuals
  and groups within its territory and also between
  itself and other states and international actors.
  
• Non-state actors like international
  organizations (UN), Multi-National Corporations,
  and transnational actors are acknowledged by
  realists, but they are of secondary importance.
  States are the dominant actors.
• Kenneth Waltz and Robert Gilpin argue that
  states are the basic actors in the international
  system by arguing that the behavior of other
  actors is conditioned and delimited by state
  decisions and state power.

2
Second Assumption of Realism

• State is viewed as a unitary actor. For realists
  a country faces the outside world as an
  integrated unit. A common assumption among
  realists is that political differences within the
  state are ultimately resolved, namely the
  government speaks with one voice for the state as
  a whole.
• On any particular issue, realists assume that
  state as a unitary actor has one policy. Of
  course there may be exceptions, but realists
  support the argument that state is an integrated
  actor. For instance, when a foreign ministry
  expresses policies different from ministry of
  defense, action is taken to bring these
  alternative positions to a common position.
• If the issue is not so much important,
  alternative views can remain, but if it is
  important, higher authorities will intervene to
  prevent alternative views.

3
Second Assumption of Realism

• States have sufficient autonomy from their
  national societies to recognize and pursue the
  interests of the nation as a whole, not just
  those of particular powerful groups and they may
  devise goals and strategies that run counter to
  the preferences of important parts of society.
• Decision-makers respond on behalf of the nation
  state to the opportunities and dangers engendered
  by the international system.

4
Third Assumption of Realism

• State is a rational actor. States are goal
  oriented and their goals are consistent. Also,
  states are assumed to derive strategies to
  achieve their goals and they are cost sensitive.
  States make cost-benefit analysis of every
  alternative, they evaluate alternatives and
  select the ones that maximizes their benefits.
  Thus, states can change their strategies in the
  face of changes in external constraints and
  opportunities.
• Realists are aware of the limit of this claim
  Practically, governmental decision- makers may
  not have all the information and knowledge they
  will need for achieving their objectives.

5
State as a Rational Actor

• As states are rational and define their interest
  in terms of their power, realists assume that all
  states behave in a standard manner. Based on the
  rationality assumption, international sistem is
  composed of states that have the same patterns of
  behavior.

6
Fourth Assumption of Realism

• the context of action the anarchy
• States coexist in a context of international
  anarchy which refers to the absence of a
  centralized authority to protect states from one
  another, each state has to survive on its own.
  Thus, states are by definition self-help agents.
• They assume that within the hierarchy of
  international relations issues, national security
  tops the list. For them, military and related
  political issues dominate world politics.

7
Balance of power mentality

• For realists, the tendency of states to balance
  against challengers through the formation of
  defensive alliances is a strong behavioral
  expectation about the effects of anarchy on
  states.
• All states, according to realists, are then
  obliged to pursue a balance of power strategy

8
The History of the European States Illustrates
the Balance of Power

• 18th Century Principal states were Britain,
  France, Austria, Prussia, and Russia which often
  changed sides to preserve the balance
• Napoleonic France (1789-1815) attempted to
  destroy the European balance and establish French
  hegemony only to be defeated by a European
  coalition
• The Concert of Europe (1815-1914) maintained
  peace through flexible and overlapping alliances
  to ensure a balance of power as a deterrent to war

9
The Focus on Power

• They focus on actual or potential conflict
  between state actors, and the use of force. They
  examine how international stability is attained
  or maintained, how it breaks down, the utility of
  force as a means to resolve conflicts. Thus,
  power is a key concept.
• The principal aim of states is to gain power
• They call military, security or strategic issues
  as high politics, whereas economic and social
  issues are viewed as less important or low
  politics. For them, high politics dominate and
  set the environment for low politics

10
Realist Description of IR

• Interstate politics is a permanent bargaining
  game over the distribution of power, thus it
  describes world politics as a state of war, and a
  struggle for power and is generally pessimistic
  about the prospects for eliminating conflict and
  war.
• Best description for world politics is a state of
  war, the constant possibility of war, because the
  nature of humanity or the structure of
  international order allows wars to occur.
• The outcome of an interstate bargaining is
  determined by the power of states at their
  disposal. Control over material resources in
  world politics lies at the core of realism. For
  them, material resources determine state
  behavior.
• They define IR as relations between states.
  Individuals, NGOs, IOs are less important.

11
Classic Realists

• The realist worldview was shaped by the ancient
  Greek historian Thucydides, Niccolo Machiavelli
  in the 16th century, Thomas Hobbes in the 17th
  century.
• They focused on national security and state
  survival and portrayed international politics as
  power politics an arena of rivalry, conflict and
  war between states
• Defending the national interest and ensuring the
  survival of the state repeat themselves
  permanently

12
Thucydides (471-400 BC)

• Greek historian. He is considered as the founding
  father of realism.
• Focused on the competitions and conflicts between
  Greek city-states.
• In Peloponnesian War (431 to 404 BC) , he
  analyzes the war between Athens and Sparta in the
  5th century BC. He dealt with the nature of war
  and why it continually recurs. For him, the past
  was the guide for the future. His work is a study
  of the struggle for military and political power.
  
• He emphasizes the limited room for manoeuvre
  available to statesmen.

13
Thucydidess Explanation of War

• Why did war occur between Athens and Sparta? For
  him, the reason was the fear associated with a
  shift in the balance of power. Although fear may
  lead to war, power and capabilities relative to
  others determine the outcome.
• Sparta was afraid of losing its pre-eminent role
  in the Hellenic world thus took counter measures
  to build up its military strength Balance of
  power mentality.
• When leaders perceive that balance of power is
  shifting to their disfavour, they try to change
  the situation due to suspicion, fear, distrust
  they feel for their rivals.
• The Peloponnesian War reshaped the Ancient Greek
  world. Athens, the strongest city-state in Greece
  prior to the war's beginning lost its power,
  while Sparta became the leading power of Greece.

14
Melian Dialogue

• The Melian Dialogue is an account of the
  confrontation between the people of Melos, a
  colony of Sparta, and the Athenians in 416-415
  B.C.
• The Athenians wanted to conquer the island to
  impose a greater threat over the Spartans.
• Before doing any harm to the island, Athenians
  sent representatives to the Melos island to
  negotiate the Melian surrender to Athens.

15
Melian Dialogue

• The Melians appealed to the strong Athens for the
  principle of justice and demanded that they
  should be respected as an independent state.
• Athenians replied that The standard of justice
  depends on the equality of power. Justice is
  not about equal treatment, it is about knowing
  your place. The strong do what they can, and the
  weak accept what they have to.

16
Melian Dialogue

• Athenians stated that you will save yourselves
  from disaster if you surrender us.
• Melians We want to remain neutral, we can be
  friends instead of enemies.
• Athenians It is not your hostility that hurt
  us. If we were on friendly terms with you, our
  subjects would regard that as a sign of weakness
  of us, but your hatred is evidence of our power.
  by conquering you we shall increase not only the
  size but the security of our empire.

17
Melian Dialogue

• MeliansWe will establish an alliance with the
  Spartans. It is their own self-interest to
  protect us. We are of the same race and share the
  same feelings.
• Athenians Do not trust Spartans, where danger
  is concerned, Spartans are not venturesome.
• The Melians refused to surrender to the Athenians
  because of their strong sense of independence.
  They also did not want to be regarded as cowards
  for surrendering so easily. The Melians argued
  that an invasion will alarm the other neutral
  Greek states, who will become hostile to Athens
  for fear of being invaded themselves.

18
Melian Dialogue

• MeliansWe are not prepared to give up in a
  short moment the liberty which our city has
  enjoyed from its foundation for 700 years.
• After this response, the Athenians occupied Melos
  and killed the men and enslaved the women and
  children.
• The irony of the Melian Dialogue "The Athenians
  look at the present and can see nothing will save
  Melos. They are right. The Melians look to the
  future. They are right too. Athens is also
  destroyed. The decline of Athens reflects the
  justification of the Melians.

19
Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527)

• He wrote about power, balance of power, formation
  of alliances, causes of conflicts. His primary
  focus was on national security.
• Survival of the state is crucial. The main
  responsibility of the rulers is always to defend
  the interests of the state and ensure its
  survival.
• Power (Lion) and deception (Fox) are two
  essential means for the conduct of foreign
  policy. If necessary, a ruler must be ruthless
  and deceptive while defending self-interest.
• His famous work The Prince deals with how to
  gain, maintain and expand power.

20
Suggestions of Machiavelli

• World is a dangerous place, and also full of
  opportunities. One should take necessary measures
  against dangers.
• If states want to enrich themselves, they should
  exploit opportunities. One should calculate
  rationally his interests and power against those
  of rival groups.
• A responsible ruler should not follow Christian
  ethics such as be peaceful, avoid war, share your
  wealth... If states follow these values, they
  will disappear in the end.

21
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)

• He had a pessimistic view of human nature. He
  emphasizes the necessity of having a powerful,
  centralized political authority.
• Human beings lived in a condition of war every
  one against every one.
• He tried to show in order to escape from this
  situation, he suggested placing all power to a
  sovereign state or Leviathan (a state authority
  or supreme ruler) that would maintain order and
  end anarchy. Without order, no economic
  development, art, knowledge

22
Hobbes and Security Dilemma

• Achievement of personal security and domestic
  security through the creation of a state leads to
  international insecurity that is rooted in the
  anarcy of the state system security dilemma
• No escape from the security dilemma as there is
  no possibility of forming a world government. He
  argues that there is no higher authority over
  states to impose order. The international system
  is a condition of anarchy. States claim to be
  sovereign with a right to be independent and
  autonomous with respect to each other. Without a
  leviathan, distrust, conflict and war are
  inevitable no permanent peace between states
• Due to the survival concerns in anarchy, states
  are expected to act in balance of power logic.

23
Hobbes and Morality

• Due to the anarchy assumption, there is no fixed
  idea of good or bad. For realism, might is right.
  
• Law or morality does not apply beyond nations
  boundaries.
• Hobbes asserts that without a superior authority
  to legislate codes of conduct, no morality or
  justice can exist. where there is no common
  power, no law where no law, no justice.

24
Hans Morgenthau

• Hans Morgenthau was one of the leading
  twentieth-century figures in the study of
  international politics. Hans Morgenthau is
  considered one of the "founding fathers" of
  realist approach.
• For him, humanbeings are evil by nature. They are
  born to pursue power and enjoy the benefits of
  power.
• The final political space within which security
  is ensured is the independent state. Beyond the
  state, security is impossible.
• The lust for power brings people into conflict
  with each other.
• For Moregnthau, politics is a struggle for power.

25
Morgenthaus Principles of Realism

• In Politics Among Nations, Morgenthau presents
  the fundamental principles of his conception of
  realism, which will be referred to as classical
  realism.
• 1. Politics "is governed by objective laws that
  have their roots in human nature which is
  selfish, self-interested. For him, the laws of
  politics are grounded in human nature. As the
  essence of the human nature never changes, the
  essence of the international system does not
  change, either.

26
Morgenthaus Principles of Realism

• 2. Politics is an autonomous sphere of action,
  and cannot be reduced to economics as Marxists do
  or to morality as liberals do.
• 3. Morality for the public sphere is different
  than the morality of the private sphere. A
  political leader does not have the same freedom
  to do the right thing that a privatize citizen
  has.The ruler has the responsibility of ensuring
  security and welfare.
• 4. As individuals are self-interested,
  international politics is a arena of conflicting
  state interests

27
Relation between power and national interest

• For Morgenthau, IR is a discipline which is based
  on the concepts of national interest and power.
• Interests of states should be defined in terms of
  their power. Statesmen should determine and
  defend their interests in accordance with the
  power they have.
• For Morgenthau, politics is a skill of
  harmonizing endless needs (interests) and scarce
  resources (power)
• Realists think within the framework of the
  national interest defined in terms of power.

28
Basic Concept of RealismPower

• No consensus even among realists how to define
  it. Some understand it to be the sum of military,
  economic, technological, diplomatic and other
  capabilities at the disposal of states. Others
  see it as capabilities relative to others. The
  power of the USA is evaluated in terms of its
  capabilities relative to those of others.
• Alternative definition, dynamic definition of
  power a states influence is determined not only
  by its capabilities, but also by its willingness
  to use capabilities, and its control and
  influence over other states.

29
How Can States Achieve Power?

• By the states own means
• Population
• Industrialization
• Science and Technology, etc
• By alliances
• All alliances are conditional they apply only
  if they remain in the power interests of the
  state.

30
Measurement, Indicators of Power

• Defense expenditures
• Military Personnel
• Iron Steel Production
• Energy Consumption
• Total Population
• Gross National Product (GNP)
• Which is more important, military or economic
  power?
• David Singer emphasizes military, industrial and
  demographic capabilities as crucial indicators.
• Power of a state is dependent on the issue
  involved. For instance, Japan is economically
  powerful but militarily weak. Opponents say that
  economic power of Japan as a global trader is
  related with its military ties with the US. This
  ensures Japans freedom to engage in commerce.

31
Do States Cooperate?

• Each of the 5 individuals has to decide whether
  to collaborate in hunting of a stag necessary to
  meet the hunger needs of all five or to defect
  from the group to capture a hare.
• Deciding to capture a hare would serve ones self
  interest at the expense of others. If the
  individual prefers to serve the common interest
  (go after stag), can he trust the others to do
  so? If one cannot trust others, is not it
  rational to go for the hare before the others?
• Uncertainty of knowing whether the others are
  good, moral and rational.

32
Do States Cooperate?

• Anarchical, self-help system makes cooperation
  difficult to achieve. What is the rational thing
  to do, to promote short term and self-interest or
  common interests?
• If a state is concerned in absolute gains, it is
  indifferent to the gains of others. As long as I
  am doing better, I dont care if others are also
  increasing their wealth or military power.
• In relative gains, it is not satisfied with
  simply increasing its power or wealth but also
  how much others gained.
• Different assumptions about a states preferences
  lead to different expectations about prospects
  for IR conflict and cooperation. For neo-realists
  relative gains assumptions makes international
  cooperation difficult to attain.

33
Difficulty of Cooperation

• states are unwilling to cooperate and maintain
  that cooperation due to
• fears of cheating
• dependency
• concerns about relative gains

34
Relative Gains Concerns Prevent Cooperation

• The issue of how the gains were distributed. Here
  the important question is how often has a concern
  for relative gains lead states to forgo mutually
  beneficial agreements.
• For instance European Community concerned about
  the implementation of Tokyo Round government
  procurement and technical standards would allow
  US to achieve disproportionate gains resisted the
  US in pressing for such an administration of
  those two codes.

35
Interdependence and Realism

• For realists, dependent party is vulnerable to
  the choices of the dominant party.
  Interdependence does not mean equality.
  Vulnerability of one party over another. For
  realists to reduce this vulnerability, it is
  better for the state to be independent.
• Quadrupling of oil prices in 1973-74 did not
  affect equally all oil importing countries.
  Vulnerability is related with what alternatives
  are available. Ex US had to increase domestic
  production, create strategic oil reserve to be
  drawn in emergencies, find other foreign sources
  of oil.

36
Interdependence and Realism

• Realists argue that maintenance of access to oil
  and natural resources is essential to national
  security. Maintaining access to oil supplies was
  a core objective of IR community to force Iraq to
  withdraw from Kuwait in 1991.
• If a state wants to be more powerful, it avoids
  political or military dependency on other states.
  
• For realists, interdependence may not enhance
  prospects for peace. Conflicts could easily
  erupt. Stability can be achieved when a strong
  state assumes leadership, even if it becomes
  hegemonic. The absence of hegemony may create
  chaos and instability.

37
Is Change Possible in the International System?

• Realists stress the continuity in international
  relations. Many of the insights of Thucydides are
  considered as relevant today as they were 2500
  years ago. Balance of power existed since 15th
  and 16th centuries. They are uninterested in
  change.
• Ropert Gilpin argues that it is possible to
  identify recurrent patterns, common elements, and
  general tendencies in the major turning points in
  IR history.

38
Rise and Fall of Hegemons

• Continuity is the dominant theme of realism as
  the anarchy forces states to behave in a similar,
  rational, power maximizing ways, or fail and to
  be conquered. However, change is constant at the
  systemic level, as powerful hegemons rise and
  fall.
• Since 1500, 4 powers dominated the system.
  Portugal (1500-end of 16th century), Netherlands
  (17th century), Great Britain (18th and 19th
  century), and the United States (1945-).
• In each cycle, one nation state is ascending,
  while another one is descending. Dynamic view of
  the IR system.
• Realism is critized for reducing change in the
  international system to the change in the
  distribution of power.

39
Mechanisms of Change

• What has been the principal mechanism of change
  throughout history? Wars, because wars determine
  which states will govern the system. It
  determines the new distribution of power.

40
Focus on Continuities in World Politics

• Realisms particular strength lies in its
  pointing out and explaining continuities in world
  politics. Realism can also be useful in
  understanding the rise and decline of major
  powers, international conflict and cooperation.
• Yet, there are important unresolved questions
  within the core of realist international theory.
  Among the most important are whether states are
  security or power maximizers, and whether this
  makes a difference for their behavior toward one
  another.

41
Defensive Realists

• States maximize security
• Defensive realists such as Kenneth Waltz and
  Stephen Walt focuse on a structural concept known
  as the offence-defence balance. They maintain
  that military power at any point in time can be
  categorized as favoring either offence or
  defence. If defence has a clear advantage over
  offence great powers will have little incentive
  to use force to gain power and vice versa.
  Defensive realists respond that offence-defence
  balance is usually tilted towards defence.

42
Defensive Realism

• 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
• the international system rewards states
  maintaining a status quo not those with the
  ambition to dominate

43
Offensive Realists

• Randall Schweller in his analysis of revisionist
  states mainly opposes the neorealist assumption
  that states merely seek to survive in favor of
  the status quo because of the existence of
  aggressive revisionist states.
• He criticizes Kenneth Waltz and Stephen Walt for
  seeing the world solely through the eyes of a
  satisfied status quo states. He argues that at
  least some states want to change their status in
  the system and will want to advance their
  relative power position.
• For Schweller, states maximize power not security

44
Offensive Realism

• John Mearsheimer
• power is 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

45
Criticisms against Realism

• For realists, continuities are more important
  than changes in interstate politics. Realists
  also argue that states are engaged in the game of
  power politics, and unable to change the rules
  even if they desire. Critics say they are
  deterministic and pessimistic.

46
Criticisms against Realism

• Realism is unsatisfactory in its understanding
  the question of international change, it does not
  take into consideration the domestic factors such
  as economic and social processes) on the foreign
  behavior of states.
• Realists failed to foresee the dissolution of the
  Soviet Union as they just focused on military
  aspect of power. This limited perspective could
  not reflect the social, political and economic
  difficulties of the Soviet society. Realists
  failed to see how Soviet people were ready for a
  radical change.
• It is difficult for realists to understand change
  in the absence of war.
• The fact that Soviet Union dissolved in the
  absence of war reflects the inadequacy of realist
  perspective.

47
Ignoring Non-State Actors

• Realists are obsessed with state and ignore other
  actors and issues. Non-state actors-MNCs, banks,
  international terrorist organizations,
  International Organizations are excluded from the
  analysis. Other concerns such as the
  socioeconomic gap between rich and poor societies
  or international pollution rarely make the
  realist agenda.

48
Realist respond to criticisms

• Arms race and military spending contribute to
  tension in the international system. Because it
  is exclusively states that spend this money to
  buy or produce military capabilities, so it makes
  sense to focus on states.
• It is only the state, given its claim to
  sovereignty, possesses the monopoly of legitimate
  force to resolve conflicts between individuals
  and groups over which it rules with a defined
  territorial space and also between itself and
  other states and international actors

49
Neo-realism and Kenneth Waltz

• Its theoretical premises are organized around
  basic features of world politics anarchy,
  distribution of power, self-regarding states. A
  rise is international insecurity, new Cold War in
  1979 and 1980 triggered its popularity.
• Waltzs work as a response to pluralism

50
Kenneth Waltz and Neorealism

• 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).

51
Waltzs neorealist theory

• 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
• in an anarchical system, units must be
  structurally similar (although their capabilities
  may vary)

52
Systemic Explanation of State Behavior

• The central determining cause of state behavior
  is the system of nation-statesanarchy
• This anarchical system imposes an imperative of
  security and survival on each state
• States seek their survival, not power
• States that ignore their relative power will be
  subordinated to other states
• no supreme authority ? self-help system no other
  state can be relied upon to defend another state
  at the risk of its own power
• Neorealist claim that their conception of
  international relations achieves the level of a
  scientific proposition

53
System as Anarchy

• Many realists considered anarchy and distribution
  of power among states as critical components of
  the international system. They argue that anarchy
  and distribution of power among states, namely
  the structure constrain decision-makers. Anarchy
  contributes distrust and conflict.
• Anarchy refers to violence, destruction, and
  chaos. When we use this term, we are referring to
  the absence of hierarchy. Due to anarchy states
  must rely on power.

54
Polarity of the System

• For neo-realists, defining feature of a system is
  the distribution of power among states unipolar,
  bipolar and multipolar. They analyze how shifts
  in these capabilities influence state behaviour,
  interactions and possibility of war.
• The bipolar system is allegedly more stable than
  a multi-polar system since the power balance
  between the superpowers can be more accurately
  and reliably calculated

55
Self-help situation

• It is dangerous to place the security of ones
  own country in the hands of others
• Security dilemma even if a state is arming for
  defensive purposes, it is rational in a self-help
  system to assume the worst. How can one be sure
  that a rival is arming for defensive reasons?
• Maybe all states desire peace, but anarchical
  nature of the IR system makes them to be
  suspicious of each other.
• Security dilemma is regulated by balance-of-power
  politics

56
Polarity and System Stability

• Kenneth Waltz argues that uncertainty increases
  as the number of international actors increase.
  Waltz argues that greater uncertainty makes it
  more likely a decision-maker will misjudge the
  intentions and actions of a potential foe. Thus,
  multipolar system with higher levels of
  uncertainty is less desirable
• For waltz, relations in a bipolar system between
  superpowers were simple and predictable. Direct
  conflicts between superpowers were usually
  avoided.
• Mearsheimer also argues that in the wake of the
  collapse of the Soviet Union and the cold war, it
  is likely that Europe will turn to multipolarity
  which will create instability and conflict on the
  continent.

57
Hegemonic Stability Thesis

• Neo-realism also claimed a central place in
  international political economy in the form of
  hegemonic stability theory.
• Robert Gilpin and Stephen Krasner argue that a
  necessary condition for the formation and
  maintenance of a liberal international economy is
  that a single state should be able and willing to
  invest the resources and to bear the burdens
  associated with the operation of such an economic
  order.
• John Ikenberry and Charles Kupchan supporting
  hegemonic stability thesis hold that one aspect
  of US hegemonic leadership after the Second World
  War took the form of the US using its power to
  socialize the Western European states to be
  inclined to economic openness.

58
Is Hegemon Necessary for the Stability?

• Robert Keohane criticizes Gilpin and Krasners
  structural theory that explains the rise and
  decline of world economic orders.
• Keohane states that the movement toward a more
  liberal order requires a hegemon, but adds that
  such an order might endure for some period of
  time without the continued support of a hegemonic
  leader.

59
The Central Defects of Realist and Especially
Neorealist Theory

• Neo-realists claim that state system, anarchy
  determines the behaviour of states. Statesmen are
  granted too little autonomy and little room for
  manoeuvre, decision-making process is seen as
  devoid of human action.
• The end of the Cold War presented a deep
  challenge to neo-realism. Structural realism is
  unable to explain the changes that peacefully
  ended the Soviet Empire.
• This and other events such as the acceleration of
  institution-building in EU and widespread opening
  to international economy by developing countries
  revived interest in a broadened liberal theory.

60
The Role of International Institutions

• New research focused on the role of international
  institutions in facilitating cooperation and the
  transformations produced by economic integration.
  The explanatory power of structural variables, as
  the distribution of power, was demonstrated to be
  weak.
• Hegemonic stability theory had been undermined
  and empirically challenged. Even the presence or
  absence of a liberal hegemonic power did not seem
  necessary to explain the persistence of
  institutions or habits of cooperation.