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, “Liberalism and World Politics”, American Political Science Review, 80 (4), pp. 1151-69. (Excerpt available from the instructor). “Realism” Outline: Introduction to Realism Key Assumptions The Evolution of Realism Classical Realism Neorealism 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’ pursuit of power 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” – still cited to this day . . . . Thucydides (?) Machiavelli (?) Hobbes (?) 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 Three major types of “Realism”: “Classical Realism” – based on danger posed by other 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” and “Idealism” about human nature 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 important, as all states seek the survival under “anarchy”

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!!!

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” also led to debate between “offensive realism” and “defensive realism”. 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

“Liberalism: Idealism – Institutionalism” 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).