Transcript POSC 2200 - Theoretical Approaches
POSC 2200 – Theoretical Approaches
Russell Alan Williams
Department of Political Science
Unit Two: Theoretical Approaches
Required Reading:
Globalization of World Politics, Chapters 5, 6 and 7.
Realism: Mearsheimer, Anarchy and the Struggle for Power, (Excerpt available from the instructor.) Liberalism: Michael Doyle, instructor).
“
Liberalism and World Politics
”
, American Political Science Review, 80 (4), pp. 1151-69. (Excerpt available from the
“
Realism
”
Outline:
1.
Introduction to Realism 2.
3.
Key Assumptions The Evolution of Realism
Classical Realism Neorealism 4.
5.
Neoclassical realism Conclusions For Next Time
1) Introduction to Realism:
IR “
Realism
” is a modern theory . . . . Founding debate – the interwar years (1919-1939) = Two “ camps ” : “
Idealism
”
:
Approach that emphasized international law, morality and organizations, rather than power E.g. Hope that
League of Nations
could prevent future wars “
Realism
”
:
Approach that explained IR mainly in terms of states ’ of power pursuit E.g. States must seek to maximize power or face destruction = WWI was
not
“ war to end all wars ” E. H. Carr (1939) coined terms - Argued that WWII proved that “
realism
” was the correct theory Dominant theory until 1990s –
particularly in US
However . . . Realism has
“
historical antecedents
”
:
Classical sources that warned against
“
idealism
”
cited to this day . . . .
Thucydides (?) Machiavelli (?) Hobbes (?)
– still
Collective insight? – See Mearsheimer for example:
World is dangerous and violent place “Wise” states pursue own power and security Morality and trust of allies can be foolish 1.
Three major types of
“
Realism
”
:
“
Classical Realism
” – based on danger posed by other 2.
3.
humans “
Neorealism
” – based on the structure of international system = “ Structural realism ” “
Neoclassical Realism
” – Combines insights from Classical and Neorealism.
2) Key Assumptions of Realism
a) Humans are potentially
“
bad
”
. . .
Inherently selfish and power seeking E.g. Debate between
“
Classical Realism
” “
Idealism
”
about human nature and
Thomas Hobbes (1642) Only Leviathan, or strong sovereign government, keeps us from killing one another =There is no “Leviathan” in international politics under normal circumstances . . . .
“
Anarchy
”
: A political system that has no central authority – does not equal chaos, but does not have enforceable rules separate from power . . . .
2) Key Assumptions of Realism
b)
“
Statism
”
: Realism emphasizes the role of states as the legitimate, rational, and constitutive actors of international politics.
Key concerns of the state:
“
Survival
”
. . . .
Classical realist scholars argue that leaders’ first and only priority is to ensure the durability of the state (E.g. Machiavelli) “
Self Help
” : Under “ anarchy ” states can only trust in their own abilities to ensure survival
2) Key Assumptions of Realism
c)
“
Power
”
: the ability to get others to do what you want them to do . . . .
For realists power comes before politics and influence and can be understood in material terms = Military, economic and strategic
“
capabilities
”
Modern realists emphasize the
“
Balance of Power
”
above all else
3) The Evolution of Realism:
a) “Classical Realism”: Carr and others drew on inspiration from classical sources . . .
States should be protective of the “
national interest
” Leaders should prioritize “
raison d
’
etat/reasons of state
” E.g. Machiavelli's Prince must be ready to do what is necessary, not what is “ good ” .
Deep suspicion of trust in rules and other sovereign authorities . . . as they also (if they are wise) will pursue “ raison d ’ etat ” in their strategies.
3) The Evolution of Realism:
a) Classical Realism was largely replaced by
“
Neorealism
”
after the 1970s
Desire for more science and clearer variables - arguments about threats inherent in human nature and rogue states give way to a more “ structural ” theory (Kenneth Waltz) “
Neorealism
”
:
Used ideas from behavioral science to understand state behavior, given the structure of the international system.
Two variables: 1)
“
Anarchy
”
2)
Distribution of power (military and economic abilities) Note: Internal characteristics of states (Democracy versus non democracies etc.) are
NOT
“
anarchy
” important, as all states seek the survival under
3) The Evolution of Realism:
“
Neorealism
”
directed focus to:
“
Relative Gains
” : International politics is a “ zero-sum game ” , in which states must be concerned about how much other states gain in relation to them = one state’s gain necessarily means another state has lost . . . .
“
Security Dilemma
” : As states acquire capabilities to make themselves secure, they make others more insecure – leads to a cycle of arms races and growing insecurity.
Implications? >>
Possibility of cooperation is very limited, because of rational self interest and fear of "
Relative Gains
"
Neorealism: Relative Gains,
“
Prisoners
’
Dilemma
”
and Nuclear Proliferation
India vs. Pakistan -
Both would be better off by not developing
“
nukes
”
= cooperation
However, each state most fears cooperating (not developing nukes) while other “ defects ” and does!!!
= huge relative gains problem!!!
Pakistan Cooperate (No nukes) Defect (Get Nukes) India Cooperate (No Nukes) Defect (Get Nukes) C , C D , C C , D D , D
•
India preference = DC>CC>DD>CD
•
Pakistan preference = CD>CC>DD>DC
•
If both states are rational, fear of cheating and
“
relative gains
”
leads to equilibrium at (D,D)
Key Point: Rational self interest makes cooperation difficult
3) The Evolution of Realism:
“
Neorealism
”
realism
”
and also led to debate between
“
defensive realism
”
.
“
offensive
Both see states as necessarily focused on maximizing their security, but have different theories about the impact of capabilities . . . .
Offensive vs. Defensive Realism John Mearsheimer –
“
Offensive Realism
”
Assumptions:
All states possess some military capability All states concerned about survival All states uncertain of other ’ s intentions
Friends today can be enemies tomorrow . . . .
Result:
Great powers should think and act aggressively whenever they can Maximize power & exploit other ’ s weakness E.g. Athens and Melos =
Culture of fear!
Offensive vs. Defensive Realism Robert Jervis –
“
Defensive Realism
”
Assumption:
If military capabilities favor defense then the capabilities of others are less threatening E.g. Weaker states can defend themselves against stronger if there is an attack
Result:
States do not need to be so quick to maximize power to survive E.g. post World War I France
Problems?
3) The Evolution of Realism:
“
Neoclassical realism
”
:
Combines the structural ideas of “
neorealism
” with more classical ideas bout the nature of individual states.
“
Neorealism
”
:
Suggested states were the same, and all were threatening “
Neoclassical realism
” : Suggests some states are less threatening regardless of their “
capabilities
” as they are satisfied with the
status quo
.
3) The Evolution of Realism:
Key point
:
Realism needed to move beyond just thinking about military capabilities and think about the goals of individual societies and states.
“ Revisionist ” states are the ones that should be feared . . . .
4) Conclusions - Realism
View of individual:
Power seeking, selfish and antagonistic
View of state:
Unitary, rational and power seeking
View of international system:
Anarchic, conflict constant (only inhibited by “
balance of power
” – E.g. conflict less likely under “
Hegemony
” or “ unipolarity ” “
Neorealism
”
has tended to play down individual and domestic politics explanations of state behavior
4) Conclusions - Realism:
Strengths:
Clearly stated & small number of variables =
clear predictions
Reflects much of what we observe (?)
Problems:
Most realists are “
offensive
” - should equal more war?
There seem to be many rules and morals in international politics Hard to explain some behavior from realist perspective: Decolonization?
USSR "gave up" the cold war?
Unclear role for economics – Realism has hard time explaining economic cooperation and “
globalization
” = GREAT DEAL OF COOPERATION
7) For Next Time . . .
Unit Two: Theoretical Approaches
“
Liberalism: Idealism – Institutionalism
”
Required Reading:
Globalization of World Politics, Chapters 5, 6 and 7.
Liberalism: Michael Doyle,
“
Liberalism and World Politics
”
, American Political Science Review, 80 (4), pp. 1151-69. (Excerpt available from the instructor).