Week 6 - Liberalism II Flashcards
(14 cards)
Interdependence
Defined: explain the existence of lasting cooperative relationships, embodied by a larger variety of institutions
Mutual dependence - states do not have self-defined goal in mind but know that they are dependent on each other in many areas - complex interdependence is characteristic of the international system
- actors other than states exert pressure on leaders to mitigate the xonsequences of a breakdown in cooperation
Lib vs Realist approach to relative/absolute gains
Realists: contend that all resources are equal and gains only matter in relative terms - if state 1 gains more than state 2 from a transaction, then state 2’s security is being reduced
- refuted by neoliberals who believe that as long as state 2 profits, then absolute gains are enjoyed by both parties
RLE - Following Brexit, the EU and GB negotiated a trade deal
- realists would argue for the EU to not take this deal since GB would get more out of it than them
- However, liberals highlight the absolute gains and argue that both should take the deal
RLE - Brexit
trade agreement between the EU/Britain, Britan withdrawing from the common market but both sides would still benefit from the formation of a trade agreement
- Neorealists would argue that the EU should not take this deal because in relative terms, the UK would be better off
- Neoliberals would argue that no deal would be too great of a loss, accept the absolute gains
Neoliberals on International Institutions
neoliberals argue that these institutions matter as actors in IR in their own right - reduce actors insecurity about binding committments in the future - there is a credible possibility of further cooperation
- decreasing transactions costs: providing information, positions of counterports, formal set up for negotiations, faster, less costly + time consuming
The Prisoner’s Dilemma
Theoretical model to illustrate the dynamics of interdependence
- neoliberals argue that the prionser’s dilemma is symbolic of state relationships in IR
- International institutions make cooperation more acheiveable by: fostering trust, making the cost of going back on a deal high, monitering agreements
Challenges to Liberal Institutionalism by theorists
Neorealists - argue that neoliberals overemphasize the possibilites for cooperation (look at softer economic issues) and underestimate the important of relative gains
constructivists - challenge the underlying assumption of rationality of actors
critical theorists - challenge neoliberals because of them, the liberal international order is less a source of stabillity and cooperation and more of an agent of global dominance
Jervis 1999
Argues with the current characterization of realism vs liberalism, uses his writing to clarify the contradictions between the key debates
False or Exaggerated Issues
Neoliberals vs Realists:
- realists see the world as full of conflict whereas neoliberals do not deny conflict but believe it does not represent world politics
Neoliberal Instituionalism: issues of IPE, concerned with efficiency (conflict is less important than potential gains which come from cooperation - eg. the protection of the environment), also look at absolute gains too
Realists: international security focused, concerned with distribution of gains, never claimed that relative gains only mattered (RLE - after the 1st atomic bomb, both sides did not gain anything from further arms race)
Area of Disagreement: not conflict but unecessary conflict
Neoliberalism: more unrealized/potential cooperation (disagreeing about what is avoidable), international politics represents the prisoner’s dilemma, rejects the idea that a free play of political forces will capture all possible joint gains
Realist Kranser: states have already been able to cooperate to such an extent that we live
Offensive realists - few situations represent the prisoner’s dilemma
- Mearsheimer: states maximize relative power because it means that they can be secure or they want other benefits of power
- Gray: the arms race is a reflection of conflicts of interest - leads to war because both sides are so aggressive
- Schwheller: security seeking states do not get into unecessary conflicts
Defensive Realists - unecessary (have more in common with neoliberals)
- states will settle for the status quo, but are driven by fear rather than desire for gains
- international politics represents a tragedy
3 differences: making defensive realists less optimistic than neoliberals
they believe that only a subset of situations is conflict necessary, states have a hard time telling the situation they’re in, less faith (mistrust and fears of cheating)
- Neoliberals: gains in efficeincy are greater than conflicts over distribution
Disagreement: changes needed for cooperation
Neoliberals: more optimistic than realists - changes are sufficent to provide mutual benefit
- better information about what the other side has done
- states can cooperation with reduced transaction costs
- no: analysis on what happens when vital interests clash
Offensive Realists: less room for increase cooperation
- changes in preferences/outcomes mya be ineffective if states seek to dominate
Defensive Realists: nature of the sitation (status quo vs expansionist or status quo vs status quo)
- agrees with neoliberals - increased transparency (mutual cooperation), interdependece reduces conflict
RLE - the realist perspective on North Korea depends on if their intentions are to dominate
RLE - Japan in the 1930s - GB/US could’ve ressured Japan of their goodwill
Realists on Institutions
Realists: institutions are a tool of statecraft, thinks that states are already doing all that they can
- Charles Glaser - ‘institutions are the product of the same facts - state’s interests and constraints imposed by the system’
Institutions as standard tools (binding and self-biding through alliances and trade agreements)
Realists: institutions can be important, but even if they involve giving power to autonomous actors like the UN, they are not autonomous in the sense of over-riding or shaping the preferences of those who established them
Institutions as innovative tools
Keohane/Martin - it can be in the interest of the states to delegate authority to unbiased bodies but this is not apparent to decision makers, increasing cooperation will allow for this
Institutions as causes of changes in preferences over outcomes
Realists - self help and institutions cannot stop states from fighting
Neoliberals: think that realists miss the point of institutions making it less likely for war by providing information and diminishing desires
RLE - German leaders would not contemplate or think about any security policies that would endanger fellow EU States - institutions would serve these functions
Lisa Martin - GB was able to gain European Support for sanctions against Argentina because of EU coordinating mechanisms
RLE - NATO’s original purpose - political leaders will lose domestic and internatioanl support if they go against the values of NATO
