Transcript Linear Regression 1

Sociology 2:
Class 15: WPT, Realism
Copyright © 2010 by Evan Schofer
Do not copy or distribute without
permission
Announcements
• Midterms returned during section this week
• Today’s class:
• World Polity Theory (WPT)
• Realism
Review: Theories of
Globalization
• General perspectives on the economy
• Adam Smith
• Marx
• Keynesianism
• Sociological theories
• Modernization theory
• World Systems Theory (WST) / dependency theory
• World polity theory (WPT) / institutional theory
• Political Science
• Realism
• Institutionalism (Political science) / Interdependence
• Constructivism.
Review: World Polity Theory
• A theory of culture-based action
• In contrast to interest-based action
• Culture influences is via:
• Norms
– Norms indicate proper behavior in a given situation
• Scripts
– Taken-for-granted “recipes” for behavior
• Cognitive models
– Maps or blueprints
• Issue: Might there be a “world culture” that
influences people and governments?
• Do states govern on the bases of cognitive models?
Review: World Polity Theory
• World Polity = associations & culture in the
international sphere
– Observation: Participants in the international
community share a common culture
• IGOs and NGOs are typically run by people educated
in Western-style tradition, believe in common things
– Example: Democracy, economic growth, education, etc
– Observation: Societies have become quite
similar in terms of government and policies
– Called “isomorphism”
• Ex: Countries adopted similar education & legal
systems, health policies, environmental laws, etc.
Review: World Polity Theory
• Idea: We think of states as “in charge”… but
maybe they are influenced by culture
– Central Claim: Features of the state derive from
“worldwide models, constructed and propagated
through global cultural and associational
processes”
– Meyer et al., p. 84
– “Worldwide models… define appropriate
constitutions, goals, organization charts, ministry
structures, and policies… Nation-states are
imagined communities drawing on models that
are lodged at the world level.”
– Meyer et al., p. 88
Example of WPT Research
• Issue: Which countries have “proenvironmental” policies?
• The most developed?
• The ones with the worst pollution?
• Answer:
– 1. Most countries have begun to enact similar
environmental laws…
• “isomorphism” or conformity
– 2. Those countries that are most connected to
international organizations conform faster
• Those “linked” to the world polity are more exposed to
global norms/culture…
World Polity Theory (WPT)
• Issue: Is World Polity Theory “right”?
• World polity theory is a new theory, but growing
– 1. World Polity research on isomorphism in
government policy is considered compelling
• Convincing evidence that states are remarkably
similar in many areas
– Despite large differences in level of development and other
factors that make similarity “surprising”
• WPT research finds isomorphism in many areas
– Evolutions of education systems around the world
– Understanding the success of the environmental movement
– Also, lots of work on trends regarding human rights.
World Polity Theory (WPT)
• Issue: Is World Polity Theory “right”?
– 2. World Polity Theorists were first to realize the
importance of INGOs in driving social change
• Other perspectives tended to ignore them…
– 3. The ideas behind WPT have garnered
support in other areas
– Called “neo-institutional theory”
• Especially the study of organizations
• This suggests potential… so people are working to
apply its ideas to global issues.
World Polity Theory (WPT)
• Criticisms of World Polity Theory
• 1. It doesn’t address power
• This is intentional: WPT represents a “corrective”,
emphasizing the influence of norms and culture
– “the social sciences are reluctant to acknowledge patterns of
influence and conformity that cannot be explained solely as
matters of power or functional rationality.”
• But, colonial relations were historically important in
defining Western ideas as the dominant ‘world’ culture
• Also, current global trends reflect US hegemony
– WPT scholars point out that US doesn’t always benefit
» e.g., when countries conform to US models of education
– But, still it seems like power may be important.
World Polity Theory (WPT)
• Criticisms of World Polity Theory
• 2. It doesn’t sufficiently address actors or
“agency”
• Again, this is an intentional goal of the theory… which
has come under criticism
• Theory implies we are all controlled by a wider culture
– Builds on Durkheim’s ideas of ‘collective consciousness’
• Where is room for agency? How can it explain
variability in the world?
World Polity Theory (WPT)
• Criticisms of WPT:
• 3. WPT explains government policies… but
not life “on the ground”
• Conformity to world culture may be strategic (e.g,. to
garner foreign aid) or very “thin”
• Ex: China may pretend to conform to global norms…
but in fact that is just a façade
– Interests, rather than culture are really driving behavior
• WPT scholars have begun responding to this
criticism… but the issue is still being debated…
World Polity Theory (WPT)
• Bottom line:
• WPT is a fascinating theory – offers a whole
new lens to view the world
• A very useful lens that explains some things that other
theories can’t
• Also very useful for understanding organizations…
– May be helpful if you start working for a big company
– But, people interested in power/inequality find it
very frustrating
– It doesn’t directly address the issues they care most about
• Plus, it is a newer perspective… more evidence
needed to fully evaluate it.
Realism
• Realism has been dominant in International
Relations (poli sci) for 40 years
• Related term: Neo-realism… a variant…
• Central claim: State behavior is driven by
the desire to survive and become more
powerful
• Moreover, this occurs primarily through war and
military competition
• Realism = even more cynical than WST.
Realism: Main Assumptions
• Basic assumptions of realism:
• Keohane and Nye, p. 20-1
• 1. States as coherent units are the dominant
actors in world politics
• States are dominant – they are the most important
entities in the international system
• Multi-nationals, IGOs, and INGOs are unimportant
– Without an army or nuclear weapons, you’re nothing!
• Also, states are unitary actors (on international
issues).
Realism: Main Assumptions
• 2. Military force (or threat of force) is the
most effective means of wielding power
• The “strong” survive and prosper
• 3. The politics of “security” is what matters
– “Security” = policies, plans, and preparations regarding war &
national defense
• States use other policies, like economic sanctions or
trade to get their way… but that is secondary
• Note: This disagrees with World-System Theory
– WST claims that economic power = most important.
Realism
• Overall picture: States are constantly in a
struggle for survival
• Definition: Anarchy: Lawlessness… absence of
government or agreed upon rules/norms
– Think Machiavelli… better to stab someone else in the back
than get stabbed!
• Historically, weak states were taken over or colonized
• During the cold war, states made alliances with US or
Soviet Union to avoid being taken over (or having
governments “replaced”)
• Through force and alliances, states can make
themselves secure and prosperous.
Realism
• Overall picture: The struggle for survival is
paramount
• States are not “nice guys”… They lie, cheat, and steal
to increase their power over others
• Example: Why did the US take over Iraq?
– Is it to “liberate Iraqis”? – a realist would say NO!
– We go to war to wipe out all enemies, gain as
many resources as possible
• States use propaganda to cover what they do, but
everything is a grab for more power.
Realism
• Realism differs from Marxism and WST
– Marxism and WST argue that the system mainly
benefits capitalists and that capitalists run the
show
• Example: The Iraq war reflected the interests of oil
companies, Halliburton, and military contractors…
– Realism argues that states run the show… they
have all the military power and make the
decisions.
Realism
• Some argue that: U.S. policy on Iraq reflects
(in part) policymakers who believe that
realism is correct
• Ex: Condoleeza Rice, a former Poli Sci Professor
• (Though some realists have criticized the war…)
– Realism suggests that the way to be safe is to
maximize military dominance, defeat enemies
• Argument: by showing overwhelming power, the US
will intimidate enemies (e.g., Syria)
• Plus, gain control of strategic resources like oil
• Result: US may be better of in the long run
– Assuming the war didn’t bog down, sap resources, and make
the US look feeble…
Realism: Criticisms
• Criticisms of Realism:
• 1. Like WST, it doesn’t make clear
predictions
• All actions can be interpreted as reinforcing the theory
• You can always come up with an after-the-fact
interpretation of actions as an attempt to increase
power
• 2. Realism did not predict (nor does it often
address) globalization in any of its forms
• Example: The EU has had a huge impact on politics
and economics in Europe… but Realism mostly
ignores it.
Realism: Criticisms
• 3. Perhaps military dominance isn’t such a
big deal anymore
– Are states still in a constant struggle for survival?
• It is hard to imagine Italy attacking Austria or Sweden
attacking Britain
• In the 21st century, many dominant nations have
almost no military strength: Japan, most small
European countries
– Economic and social issues matter
• Maybe even norms…
Realism
• Bottom line:
• 1. Realism provides a very good explanation
of warfare in the 1700s & 1800s
• Warfare was commonplace
• The international system was more like an anarchy
• States really were in a struggle for survival
– 2. Also, realists have the most sophisticated
analyses of the Cold War
• Though newer perspectives are beginning to
challenge this.
Realism
• Bottom line (continued):
• 3. The simple logic of realism is very
attractive
• “Interest-based” explanations are highly intuitive…
– BUT: lots of historical events are hard to explain
from this perspective…
• Decline in territorial war, brute-force imperialism
• Emergence of the EU, dense webs of IGOs
• Examples where states appear to conform to norms
– Ex: Many states are improving records on human rights, etc
Institutionalism / Interdependence
• Keohane and Nye: Institutionalism /
Interdependence
• A critical response to realism
• Major claims:
• 1. Societies are interconnected in many ways
• Not just leaders and militaries, as realism suggests
• 2. States interact over many kinds of issues
• War and security isn’t the only issue
• Economics, environmental issues, etc., are also
addressed.
Institutionalism / Interdependence
• 3. Military force is not central to inter-state
relations
• Question: If military force doesn’t matter,
what does?
– Answer #1: International organizations
• They are the playing field of global politics
– Answer #2: “Soft Power”: “Getting others to
want the outcomes you want” (Nye p. 5)
• “Soft power rests on the ability to shape the
preferences of others
Institutionalism / Interdependence
• 4. International organizations are the center
of global politics
• They set agendas (e.g., trade, environmental issues)
• Within international organizations, states form
coalitions and push for their interests
– All states have an equal vote in most IGOs… so they barter
and haggle.
• Result: world politics is a lot like national politics.
Institutionalism / Interdependence
• Claim: To study global politics, you have to
study what goes on in international
organizations
• Example: WTO policy
• A World-system theorist would predict that the WTO
would always support interests of capitalists
• A Realist would ignore the WTO as irrelevant
• A Complex Interdependence scholar would examine
coalitions, alliances, and votes to see what is going
on.
Institutionalism / Interdependence
• Claim: “International organizations are
frequently congenial institutions for weak
states”… Keohane and Nye, p. 31
– Nations have equal voting power in most IGOs
• This allows small/weak nations to form powerful
coalitions
• Ex: poor nations can sometimes block or influence
WTO rules
– Many IGOs support norms of equity
• Example: the UN uses money from wealthy countries
to aid those in poverty.
Institutionalism / Interdependence
• Both realism and WST predict that weak
nations will be mercilessly exploited &
dominated
• Institutionalism / interdependence predicts
otherwise
• Weak countries will be able to use international
organizations to improve their situation
• Ex: Poor countries have negotiated for special
treatment in many environmental treaties.
Institutionalism / Interdependence
• Realism and WST argue that all nations will
look out for themselves (or capitalist classes)
• Ex: They will cheat on environmental treaties; They
will build weapons of mass destruction
• Treaties and IGOs are inherently fragile… Powerful
nations will ignore or abolish them when the are no
longer useful
• Institutionalism / Interdependence: Through
IGOs, countries can work for the collective
good
• Complex Interdependence predicts that nations can
improve the environment, eradicate WMD
• Ex: Non-proliferation treaty; Environmental treaties.
Institutionalism / Interdependence
• Criticisms of Institutionalism /
Interdependence
• Summarized in article by Waltz
– 1. “The world is less interdependent than is
usually supposed”
• Levels of trade aren’t much higher than in 1914, just
before WWI; most MNCs are still rooted in one
country.
– 2. Political/military power still matters
• US power holds up global institutions (IMF, World
Bank)
• Ultimately, economics is subordinate to politics.