Unit Two: Realist Theory and IPE

Unit Two: Realist Theory and IPE

Dr. Russell Williams

Outline:1. Realism – the Basics

2. Implications of Realism for State Behavior

3. Realist Approaches to IPE

4. Modern Realism and IPE - Hegemonic Stability Theory

5. Conclusion

6. Further Reading

Required Reading: Cohn, Global Political Economy, Ch. 3.

Class Discussion Reading: Susan Strange, “The Future of the American

Empire,” Journal of International Affairs, Fall 1988, Vol. 42 Issue 1, pp. 1-17.

1) Realism – the Basics: Dominant approach to the study of IR, but less important in

IPE?

States are key actor E.g. IO’s and MNC’s often only “extensions” of state

power

States are: “Unitary” - Domestic politics and interests less important “Rational” - States pursue predictable strategies based

on calculations of self interest “Survival” “Power” “Sovereignty” - Internal and external

Global politics is a “self help” system – states must look after themselves

“Politics” more important than economics Economics only important topic when it relates to state

power

Skepticism about international law, rules, regimes and values Rules are for the “weak”. . . .

Skepticism about cooperation States only cooperate when then they gain more than

others = little cooperation under normal circumstances?

Realism “parsimonious” Has few variables and leads to clear predictions

Realist Theories of International Relations (IR):

Avoid overgeneralization – not one single theory

i) Classical Realism: (Machiavelli to Morgenthau) Human nature is bad - hard to trust others Reject liberal views of human nature

Therefore, other states are an inherent threat

E.g. Hobbes’ “State of nature” Makes a virtue of pursuit of power Other theories seen as “idealism” (E.H.

Carr)

ii) Structural Realism (1970-Present) Waltz, Grieco and Mearsheimer More scientific - explored where threats came

from Three “images”

Human nature? Domestic Politics? International Structure – lack of

Government?

= International Structure matters!!! Global anarchy means states have to be

amoral in the pursuit of power Only two independent variables:

Anarchy Distribution of power in the interstate system

Large impact on policymakers in US More role for economics . . . (E.g. Thucydides)

2) Implications for State Behavior:

a) The “Security Dilemma”: Security and pursuit of power is a “zero sum” game

Any increase in my security or power means a decrease for others . . .

= Cooperation unlikely

b) “Relative gains” more important then “absolute gains”

States only cooperate to pursue relative advantages over others=E.g. IO’s seen as tools of powerful states which hurt

the interests of weaker states

c) State policy driven by international structure and position in the global “balance” of power

Powerful states will pursue different strategies from weak – try to ensure the status quo

=E.g. Only economically powerful support free trade

Bottom Line: Cooperation difficult States unlikely to expose themselves

to interdependence

3) Realist Approaches to IPE

a) Proto-realism and economics: Most classical realists integrated international

economics in their analysis. Economics seen as a source of conflict and war

E.g. Imperialism

Economy important to state power E.g. Thucydides and the Athenians E.g. Machievelli

b) “Mercantilism” (16th to 18th Century)

Classical mercantilism: States’ power dependent on “treasure” Gold is key to power of emerging sovereign

states States seek to increase their holdings of gold

and silver through: Conquest and colonies Increase exports, decrease imports

Problems?

c) Economic Nationalism and Neo Mercantilism: 19th and 20th century and beyond . . .

Industrialization seen as key economic goal Necessary to independence (sovereignty) Essential to military power (security)

States need industrial development to survive (Friedrich List) States should:

Adopt high tariffs (protectionism) Encourage development of national industries

4) Modern Realism and IPE:

Post War Period:

Liberal free trade collapsed prior to WWII “Economic nationalism”

Post War Realists believed economic cooperation had to be enforced by dominant states Could reduce threats and conflict

Breton Woods system and free trade possible because: US military and economic dominance Threat of the Soviet Union = other states had no choice but to

cooperate

1970’s - Post War System under stress: Economic crises = Post War liberal economic order

under threat???? US decline?

US economy relatively smaller Economic success of Germany and Japan

OPEC Global economic slowdown Financial instability = end of dollar standard

“Détente” – decline of the cold war Result: Realists begin to pay more attention to

economics=Declining economic cooperation in north and era of

the “new protectionism”

“Hegemonic Stability Theory (HST)”:

1980s realists argue, “politics” still dominant over economics=Economic “cooperation” becoming more difficult because

of declining US power

“Hegemony” (in Realism): Leadership, or dominance, of international system by single state

HST assumes: Like liberalism, free trade and globalization good in

theory, but unlikely to occur because states mistrust one another under conditions of anarchy

“Free trade” and economic cooperation seen as “public goods”

Non excludible and non rival=“Free riders” = collective action problems

“Hegemonic Stability Theory (HST)”:

Hegemonic state can either: Provide public goods itself - So dominant economically

that it is in its interest to do so . . . . Force “free riders” to “pay” for public goods

Key claim: Hegemony = Liberal economic order

Problems:

What is hegemony???? Economic or military? “Soft Power” or ideology?

How do we know when a state is hegemonic, or the world is uni-polar?

“Hegemonic Stability Theory (HST)”:

Problems:

1) Risk of tautology “Reading off the “dependent variable”

2) Empirical record? If US had declined by 1980s, why globalisation?

Contemporary Realism: Retreat to “High Politics”?

Post 9/11 return to emphasis on security and military conflict

Economic issues have been “securitized”

Conclusions :

a) Strengths of Realism: “Parsimony’ (?) Focus on distributional outcomes – who gains

what . . . . Rejection of idealistic prescriptions of how the

world should be

b) Weaknesses of Realism:

Domestic politics? Under emphasis of importance of wealth and

economics? Empirical problems? There seems to be a lot more economic

cooperation then realists assumed likely . . . . Does HST overcome this problem?

Further Reading:

Samuel P. Huntington, “The Lonely Superpower,” Foreign Affairs, 78-2 (March/April 1999), pp. 35-49. Example of realist analysis of contemporary US challenges.

Joseph M. Grieco, “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism,” International Organization, 42-3 (Summer 1988), pp. 485-507.

John J. Mearsheimer, “The False Promise of International Institutions,” International Security, 19-3 (Winter 1994/95), pp. 5-49. Examples of realism’s critiques of liberal challengers

For Next Time:

Unit Three: Thinking Liberally - Diversity and Hegemony in IPE

Required Reading: Cohn, Ch. 4.

Class Discussion Reading: Eric Helleiner, “Economic Liberalism and Its

Critics: The Past as Prologue?,” Review of International Political Economy, 10-4 (November 2003), pp. 685-696.