Transcript Introduction - University of British Columbia

Theories of
International Relations
Theories of IR: Features



Realism, liberalism, marxism (crit)
Constructivism, feminism, rationalism,
post-modernism, post-colonialism
Theory as generalizable accounts of
how world works that go beyond the
specific details of one unique case
• E.g., if you want peace, prepare for
war
• E.g., if you want peace, democratize
– as democracies do not wage war
vs. each other
Theories
There has been a fatal
car crash. Why did the
victim die?
 Prioritize your answers
into a single list,
beginning with the most
important reasons.

Theories of IR: Features

What factors are most important?
• The causes that are most common
• Causes that have the biggest impact,
affecting the most people
• The causes that we can do
something about and change


Long-term, underlying causes vs.
immediate
With limited resources, if we want to
prevent war, famine, injustice and
repression, where should we put our
efforts? Answers = theories of IR
Theories of IR: Features





Theories are generalizable accounts of how world
works that go beyond the specific details of one
unique case
• E.g., globalization increases disparities / increases
global wealth
• E.g., democracies do not wage war vs. each other
Limits of IR theories: No single theory can always
explain everything
Competing vs. complementary alternatives
Theory as tool: Don’t just (be a) hammer!
Why do we choose & use theories?
• Unavoidable: Our understandings of the world are
all informed by theoretical assumptions


how explicit, self-conscious we are
Different degrees of abstraction
• We often have to make choices & decide: Theories
tell us how to act - Prescription
Realism
Central Assumptions and Propositions

View of history
• Repetitive / cyclical: no progress
• Conflictual: focus on military power
• World politics as history of great
power war


Key actors - States
State Behavior: Self-interest
• States seek to maximize power
• Relative Gains / World Politics as
Zero-Sum Game
• Game Theory / Prisoner’s Dilemma
Prisoner’s Dilemma
& Nuclear Proliferation
Cooperate = don’t build nuclear arsenal
Defect = build nuclear arsenal
PAKISTAN
Cooperate
Defect
INDIA
Cooperate
Defect
How would you rank the possible
outcomes, from best (4) to worst (1)?
CC
CD
DC
DD
Prisoner’s Dilemma
Cooperate = don’t build nuclear arsenal
Defect = build nuclear arsenal
INDIA
Cooperate
Defect
PAKISTAN
Cooperate
Defect
(3,3)
(1,4)
(4,1)
(2,2)
1st number = India’s payoff
2nd number = Pakistan’s payoff
Rational solution = defect no matter what other side does

Realism
Central Assumptions and Propositions
View of history - Repetitive (no progress) /
Conflictual (focus on military power): World politics
as history of great power war


Key actors - States
State Behavior: Self-interest
• States as Rational Power-Seekers
• Relative Gains / Zero-Sum Game
• Game Theory / Prisoner’s Dilemma

Sources of Conflict
• Structural (Neo)Realism: Anarchical system =
self-help system
• Classical Realism: Human Nature: Selfinterested, desire for power
Realism: Policy Prescriptions

I) Balance Power:
• Ignore culture, moral considerations in foreign
policy; obey only dictates of maximizing your
power relative to others. Human rights, etc. of
other countries = none of our business.
• “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”
• Problems with balance of power


Which is more stable? Bipolar, multipolar,
hegemony?
Difficulties in measuring power
• “soft power”

Focus on military capabilities = worst case
scenario, conduct foreign policy based on
possibilities of threat
• Criticism: We act usually on probabilities: intentions,
common ideas, shared norms matter also
Realism: Policy Prescriptions
I) Power Balancing
II) Deterrence and Compellence: Threat /
Use of Military Force
• Deterrence = “DON’T!” (or else…)
• Dissuade another from taking an action by
threat of punishment
 E.g., Nuclear strategy: don’t attack or you
will be destroyed in retaliation
 E.g., China to Taiwan: don’t declare
independence
 Can explain, e.g.: Why did Iraq not use
CW during Gulf War of 1991?
Realism: Policy Prescriptions

II) Deterrence and Compellence: Threat /
Use of Military Force
• Deterrence = “DON’T!” Dissuade another from
taking an action by threat of punishment (don’t
attack)
• Compellence = “DO!” Force another to stop
something they are doing, or do something they
otherwise wouldn’t do, by threat or use of force
 Truman and atomic bomb threat to Japan,
1945: surrender
 Gulf War, 1991 = leave Kuwait
 NATO vs. Milosevic 1999: Stop repression in
Kosovo or else…
 Non-proliferation - US 2003 to Saddam
Hussein: disarm or be attacked
Realism: Criticisms

Often wrong as description or
explanation:
• Human nature more complex: not just
narrow material self-interest, but moral &
self-defeating impulses (hatred, envy).
 E.g., Hitler attacking USSR, nuclear
proliferation (Germany, Japan, etc.),
NATO in Kosovo
• Does not account for peaceful &
progressive change

E.g., desuetude of great power war,
Democratic Peace, human rights (arrest of
Pinochet, Milosevic, etc.), end of Cold War,
abolition of slave trade, etc.
Realism: Criticisms




Often wrong as description or explanation:
• Realist response: States should have acted in
other ways (or will be punished by system).
Problem: Can’t have it both ways - either claim to be
empirically correct (more “realistic”) or admit the
theory is more prescriptive (like “idealists”).
Implications:
• Not inherently superior empirically (not more
realistic than rival theories)
• Not as scientific as claimed: Predictions often fail
• National interest can too easily be a tautology
(circular)
• Strength = ‘bad apple’ problem
Can be dangerous and unnecessary ‘self-fulfilling
prophecy’. E.g., Ukraine and nuclear weapons
Final Exam

Final Exam:
• Thursday, December 10,
12:00 – 2:30 pm
• Location: TBA
Liberalism
Central Assumptions and Propositions

View of history: progressive change
possible
• Increased material prosperity
through market liberalization,
technology & economic
interdependence (free trade)
Liberalism
Central Assumptions and Propositions

View of history: progressive change
possible
• Increased material prosperity
through market liberalization,
technology & interdependence (free
trade)
• Justice: abolition of slave trade &
apartheid, human rights (ICTR, ICTY,
ICC), etc..
• Peace: End of the cold war / liberal
democratic peace
Liberalism
Central Assumptions and Propositions


View of history: progressive change possible
• Material prosperity, justice, peace
Key actors: International Society
• State interests as product of domestic actor’s
preferences (not balance of capabilities)
• Non-state transnational actors:
 IOs (UN, WTO, ICC)
 NGOs (Medecins Sans Frontiers, Greenpeace,
Amnesty International)
• Transnational networks = Global civil
society?
 Individuals / Moral Entrepreneurs
Liberalism
Central Assumptions and Propositions


View of history: progressive change possible
• Material prosperity, justice, peace
Key actors: International Society
• State interests as product of domestic group
preferences (not balance of capabilities)
• Non-state transnational actors & institutions:
 IOs (UN, WTO, ICC)
 NGOs (Medecins Sans Frontiers, Greenpeace,
Amnesty International)
• Transnational networks = Global civil
society?
 Individuals / Moral Entrepreneurs: Henri
Dunant, Jody Williams, Bono, etc.
Liberalism
Central Assumptions and Propositions



View of history - progressive change
possible
Key actors: Pluralist / International
Society
Behavior
• Benign / Cooperative / Humanitarian


E.g.: How to explain foreign aid / Canada
and WTO waiver of patent protections for
AIDS drugs, etc?
Sources of cooperative behavior
International Society


What were the last several times
you obeyed the law?
Why did you do it?



Coercion (“forced to”):
• Realism / critical theories
Self-interested gain (“voluntarily for
benefits/costs”):
• (Neo-) liberalism / rational choice
Justice (“because it was right”) /
Socialized (“taken for granted”):
• (liberal) constructivism
Liberalism
Central Assumptions and Propositions

Sources of Cooperation:
• I) (Enlightened) self-interest
 Absolute gains from
cooperation
 Reciprocity
 International trade as positive
sum game (liberal economic /
trade theory)
Liberalism: Globalization as positive sum
Vicente Fox, President of Mexico, 2000-2006
Complex Interdependence:
The Global Car
Can we cooperate for our mutual advantage?


Collective goods: A benefit available to all
regardless of one’s contribution. One can
still gain while lowering one’s own
contribution, but if everyone or even too
many “free ride”, the good won’t be
provided.
Example: Clean environment and air
pollution
 11 = 90 (A+)
 10 = 79 (B+)
 9 = 67 (C+)
Liberalism
Central Assumptions and Propositions

Implications:
• World Politics not predominantly as a conflictual
self-help system of anarchy, but interdependent
global society with international institutions
facilitating cooperation
Liberalism
Central Assumptions and Propositions

Sources of Cooperation:
• I) Enlightened (material) self-interest


Reciprocity
Learning
• II) Communication, Information &
Coordination and Verification
 Overcome problems of distrust and cheating
(Prisoner’s Dilemma, Collective Action)
 Monitoring & verification for compliance:
• CWC / NPT & IAEA / CTBT
Do International Institutions Matter?
Verification and Inspections
Liberalism
Central Assumptions and Propositions

Sources of Cooperation:
• I) Enlightened (material) self-interest (Neoliberalism) & reciprocity
• II) Communication, Information & Coordination
and Verification
 Overcome problems of distrust and cheating
(Prisoner’s Dilemma, Collective Action)
 Monitoring & verification for compliance:
• CWC / NPT & IAEA / CTBT
• III) Power of Shared Ideas: (liberal constructivism)
 Humanitarianism / Justice & Legitimacy
 Why cooperate / seek justice & peace? “Because
it is right / that’s who we are”
• Human Rights / sanctions vs. Apartheid
International Law




Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS)
Environment (Ozone,
Pollution, Species,
Kyoto Protocol)
Laws of war (Geneva
Conventions / ICTY /
ICTR / ICC)
Arms control (NPT,
CTBT, CWC,
Landmines)




Communications /
travel
Economics / trade
(WTO, copyright)
Human Rights
International Criminal
Law (piracy, slavery,
genocide, ICC)
Liberalism: Policy Prescriptions




Multilateralism: IOs & International Law
• vs. isolationism and unilateralism
“Enlargement”: Encourage democracies
• Liberal Democratic peace theory
Cosmopolitanism: Common humanity and foreign
policy
• Foreign Aid / Human Rights
• Humanitarian Intervention: R2P
• Stability requires justice (vs. amnesties): Criminal
Tribunals / ICC
Reassurance & Bargaining Incentives (vs deterrence)
• Iran / North Korea
Liberalism
Criticisms


Too optimistic / Naïve:
• Persistence of self-interest & conflict
• Reassurance / “carrots” subject to
blackmail / cheating
Moral crusades / Cultural imperialism
• Moral values / identity politics as source of
conflict


Condoleezza Rice: “American values are
universal.”
• Problem: Imperialism / Wage war to
prevent war?
Injustice & Inequalities
Critical Theories
Marxism / Imperialism
Why Study
Marxism/Imperialism today?

“… inequality, exclusion, famine
and thus economic oppression
[have never] affected as many
human beings in the history of the
Earth and of humanity” as today
Jacques Derrida
The Global Poor
Gap Between Rich and Poor




Richest 1% of world’s population = income of
poorest 57%
Assets of top 3 billionaires > GNP of 600 million
people in least developed countries
1960, average GNP of wealthy nations = $6520 /
poor = $361:
• Difference = $6159
2001: Average GNP of high-income countries =
$26,989 / least developed = $1274
• Difference = $25,715
Gap Between Rich and Poor
30000
25000
20000
15000
$Difference
10000
5000
0
1960
2001
The Global South: >4 Billion People







2.4 billion lack basic sanitation
1 billion lack safe drinking water
1.1 billion lack housing
900 million undernourished
1.2 billion (one in five) live on < $1 / day
/ 2.8 billion live on < $2 / day
1.5 billion can expect to die before 40
Consequences of Inequalities & Poverty


Per capita public spending on health:
• Least developed countries: $6
• High-income countries: $1356
10 million children < 5 die annually from
preventable causes: 30,000 a day
• Diarrhea killed more children in 1990s
than all people killed in armed conflict
since WWII
• 42 million living with HIV/AIDS, 39
million in developing world
1997 Figures: UN Development Report
2003
Life Expectancy at Birth, 2002
80
81
79
77
71
70
67
67
64
60
50
40
39
34
30
Jap
Can
US
China
Russ
Ind
Moz
Sierra L
World
Inequality in Globalized World
UN Human Development
Report / Human Development
Index


http://hdr.undp.org/
Human Development Index:
• Living a long and healthy life
(life expectancy)
• Being educated
• Having a decent standard of
living (purchasing power
parity, PPP, income)
Spot a billionaire...
'The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world-market
given a cosmopolitan character to consumption in every
country…All old-fashioned national industries have been destroyed
or are daily being destroyed…In place of the old wants, requiring
for their satisfaction the products of different lands and climes. In
place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency,
we have intercourse in every direction, universal interdependence
of nations…
Marx and Engels on Global reach of Capitalism
Marxism / Imperialism

Economic Inequalities / Redistributive Justice

Oppression


Transformation / Replacement of system (as
opposed to maintenance / reform)
Critique of Capitalism and Globalization
Why study Marxism today?



Heirs of Marxist tradition animate contemporary critiques of
globalization and inequality
Historical Importance - One-third of humanity live(d) under
Marxist-inspired regimes
Intellectual tool to analyze inequality: Emphasis on
revolutionary impact of capitalism upon human society
major contribution to history of thought
Why study Marxism today?
Largest
Economies
US$ Billions
Source: 1998 World Bank Atlas; 1997 Fortune Global 500
Capitalism, Classes & Struggle
Marxism/Imperialism
Central Assumptions and Propositions

Key actors
• Classes
 Capitalists (owners) exploit workers (proletariat)

View of History: Teleological / Dialectical
• Classical Marxism: Stages of History – progressive
evolution
• Imperialism – inter-imperial competition
• Dependency Theory – Extrapolation of Classical Marxism
• Crises of Capitalism: Unjust inequalities require
oppression to sustain
Marxism / Imperialism
World Systems theory: Core & Periphery


Core (“North”/ global capital / MNCs) vs. periphery
(providers of raw materials, cheap labour)
Hierarchical structure of world politics: wealthy
exploit the poor
Human Nature: Malleable



Product of forces of production: From Alienation to
Emancipation
Conditioned by ideology (Gramsci)
Hegemony – coercion and consent
The Financial Crisis
Marxism / Imperialism
• What is the role of the state?




‘Instrumental’ Marxism: State as “Executive Committee of
the Ruling (Corporate) Class,” doing the bidding of
corporations
‘Structural Marxism’: Role of state is to ensure overall
stability of global capitalist economy
Evidence? Interventions in Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954),
Dominican Republic (1965)
Problems: When government policy is against business
interests or no business interests exist (Korean War,
Vietnam, Kosovo, Afghanistan, etc.)
Marxism / Imperialism

Key actors
• Classes
 Capitalists (owners) exploit workers
(proletariat)
• World Systems theory: Core vs. periphery
• What is the role of the state?
 ‘Instrumental’ Marxism: State as
“Executive Committee of the Ruling
(Corporate) Class,” doing the bidding of
corporations
 Evidence? Interventions in Iran (1953),
Guatemala (1954), Dominican Republic
(1965)
 Iraq 2003?
Marxism: state serving the interests of
corporations

Key actors
Marxism / Critical Theory
• Classes
• World Systems theory: Core vs. periphery
• What is the role of the state?
 ‘Instrumental’ Marxism: Individual
government policy is controlled by corporate
interests
 ‘Structural Marxism’: Role of state is to ensure
overall stability of global capitalist economy
• Gramsci: ‘Hegemonic Blocs’ (state,
corporations, media) perpetuate ideology /
myths to perpetuate inequalities
• Example: “IMF - Wall Street - Treasury
Complex” perpetuate myth of corruption
and “crony capitalism” to explain Asian
economic crisis of 1997
The 1997-8 Asian Economic Crisis

Steepest economic decline affecting so many
people since Great Depression of 1930s:
• Bankruptcies, unemployment, currency
devaluaton, inflation, stock market crashes

Economic Growth:
• Thailand: 1998: -7.5%
• South Korea: 1998: -7%
• Indonesia: 1998/99: -16%
• Political Instability & chaos:

Indonesia
• “The most dramatic economic collapse anywhere in 50
years”
The 1997 Asian Economic Crisis



Steepest economic decline affecting so
many people since Great Depression of
1930s:
Implications: Do states have adequate
control over their economic destiny in
the face of globalization?
Was the crisis the result of poor
domestic policy choices or external
forces (too) difficult to resist?
Origins of Asian Economic Crisis, 1997
Thailand
Source: WGBH Video, 'Commanding
Heights'
Asian Economic Crisis, 1997:
Malaysia & Indonesia
Source: Commanding Heights, WGBH
Video
Asian Economic Crisis, 1997:
South Korea
Source: Commanding Heights, WGBH
Video
Asian Economic Crisis, 1997
IMF: Needed assistance or Neo-imperialism?
The 1997 Asian Economic Crisis


Steepest economic decline
affecting so many people since
Great Depression of 1930s:
Bankruptcies, unemployment.
Whose fault, what lessons should
be learned?
• Was the crisis the result of domestic
policy choices or external forces too
powerful to resist?
1997 Asian Economic Crisis

Explanations:
• 1) Domestic Policy preferences
(“capitalist accumulation”/liberal):





Risky speculation
Corrupt banking / bad loans (“Crony
capitalism”)
Liberalized financial controls to welcome
investment
Strengths: Helps explain variation
between countries (Hong Kong,
Singapore, Philippines, Taiwan vs.
Thailand, SKorea, Indonesia)
Weakness: Underestimates market and
political pressure to open financial
markets?
1997 Asian Economic Crisis

Explanations: Why?
• 1) Domestic Preferences (Liberal):
 Financial liberalization / Corrupt banking /
risky speculation
• 2) Neo-Imperialism: Globalization & the “IMF –
Wall St. – Treasury Complex” (Critical Theory)
 Rapid / enormous capital inflows / outflow
• Global investors: Uncontrollable
Speculation
• US / IMF: Did they just encourage, or
pressure / coerce liberalization?
 E.g, Korea: Price for OECD membership
• Failure to intervene with bailout
 Lessons: Moral hazard of Mexican bailout, 1995
Mexican Bailout, 1995
Moral Hazard
1997 Asian Economic Crisis

Explanations: Why?
• 1) Domestic Preferences (Liberal):
 Financial liberalization / Corrupt banking /
risky speculation
• 2) Neo-Imperialism: Globalization & the “IMF –
Wall St. – Treasury Complex” (Critical Theory)
 Rapid / enormous capital inflows / outflow
• Global investors:
• US / IMF: Did they just encourage, or
pressure / coerce liberalization?
• Failure to intervene early enough with
bailout: why?


Liberal: Moral hazard of Mexican bail-out, 1995
Critical: Finance / wealthy state collusion &
contradictions of capitalism
Marxism / Critical Theory
Policy Prescriptions



So, how to respond to vast
inequalities and recurrent crises?
What are the possible options that
you would advocate for your own and
your country’s well-being?
Why?
Would your prescriptions differ if you
were among the global poor?
Marxism / Imperialism
Policy Prescriptions

Resistance
Resistance to Capitalism:
WTO in Seattle, 1999
Marxism / Imperialism
Policy Prescriptions


Resistance
Revolution
Russian Revolution, 1917
Chinese Revolution, Mao in 1949
Marxism / Imperialism
Policy Prescriptions



Resistance
Revolution
Autarky
Autarky - Self-sufficiency
India
Marxism / Imperialism
Policy Prescriptions



Resistance
Revolution
Autarky
• Import substitution
Prescriptions of Dependency Theory: Import
Substitution
Latin America
Marxism / Imperialism
Policy Prescriptions



Local / Global
Resistance to
exploitation /
domination
Revolution
Autarky
• Import substitution

Redistribution
• NIEO 1970s
• Commodity Prices /
Subsidies
Marxism/Imperialism: Criticisms

Determinism/Reductionism
• Importance of state & nationalism
• Resiliency of capitalism

Practice: Repression of marxist-inspired
regimes
Tiananmen Square, 1989
Marxism/Imperialism
Criticisms


Determinism/Reductionism
Practice: Repression of marxist-inspired
regimes

Empirical accuracy of theories of
underdevelopment / exploitation:
• “NICs”
NICs
Marxism/Imperialism
Criticisms


Determinism/Reductionism
Practice: Repression of marxist-inspired
regimes

Empirical accuracy of theories of
underdevelopment / exploitation:
• “NICs” (“4 Tigers”)

SKorea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan
• “Celtic Tiger”
• Contemporary growth of China,
Brazil, India, etc.


Is reform enough to deal with
inequalities?
Are crises of capitalism a tolerable
price of growth?


Is reform enough to deal with
inequalities? Are crises of
capitalism a tolerable price of
growth? Is economic globalization
a blessing or a curse?
UN Human Development Report
• http://hdr.undp.org/external/gapmin
der/2005/2005.html
Is economic globalization a blessing or a
curse?

Over past 30 years:
• Life expectancy has >ed 8 years
• Illiteracy cut in half, to 25%
• # of people living on < $1 a day in East Asia almost halved
in 1990s

In 1990s:
• China lifted 150 million - 10% - out of poverty
• Share of world’s population in severe poverty <ed from 30%
to 23%
BUT
• Excluding China, # of extremely poor >ed by 28 million
• 54 nations grew poorer, in 34 nations life expectancy <ed, in
21 a larger % went hungry
• Soaring food prices: rose 52% 2007-08, -> 75 million more
below hunger threshold in 2007
Is economic globalization a blessing or a
curse? Is reform of the system enough?

What matters most? Relative losses
(equality/justice) or absolute gains?