Chapter 3 Contending Perspectives: How to Think about International Relations Theoretically

Theory in IR Theory = a set of propositions and concepts that seeks to explain phenomena by specifying relationships among the concepts Theory generates groups of testable hypotheses = specific statements positing a particular relationship between two or more variables By testing groups of interrelated hypotheses, theory is verified and refined and new relationships are found that demand subsequent testing; ongoing process Ultimate goal = predict phenomena Good theory should be able to explain phenomena at particular level of analysis; better theory should offer explanations across different levels of analysis

Levels of Analysis Why pay attention to levels of analysis? Orient questions Suggests appropriate type of evidence to explore Make logical deductions Enables us to explore all categories of explanation Individual level = personality, perceptions, choices, activities of individual decision makers State level = domestic factors; characteristics of the state: type of government, economic system, interest groups, national interest International level = characteristics of international system (anarchy?), interactions among states and international organizations (IGOs, NGOs, MNCs), distribution of power among these actors, alliances

Liberalism (Idealism) Human nature is basically good; individuals are rational People can improve moral and material conditions Societal progress possible Injustice/war not inevitable, can be moderated, eliminated through institutional reform or collective action (collective security, e.g., League of Nations, UN) product of inadequate, corrupt social institutions, misunderstandings Through learning and education, humans can develop institutions to bring out their best characteristics Expansion of human freedom best achieved through democracy and free-market capitalism Trade and commerce create interdependencies between states, reducing likelihood of war Emphasis on international institutions and international law

Neoliberal Institutionalism Given anarchic international system, why do states cooperate? Not traditional liberal view (hence, Neoliberal) Individuals are naturally cooperative Established institutions that permit cooperative interactions, prohibit coercive ones Prisoner’s dilemma Two prisoners, each interrogated; if one confesses and other doesn’t, confessor goes free; both confess, reduced prison time for both; neither confess, even shorter prison time; one time choice; neither knows what other will do; cost of not confessing extraordinarily high Result: both confess, producing less-than-optimal outcome for both Function of one-time interaction; repetition makes it rational to cooperate In self-interest to cooperate States face ongoing confrontations with other states; in their mutual self-interest to cooperate Institutions make cooperation on host of issues possible by guaranteeing framework of interaction

Realism Individuals primarily selfish and power seeking Individuals organized in states; states are the principal actors; states act in unitary way in pursuit of national interest; decision-makers are rational; national interest defined in terms of power International system is anarchic; states can only rely on themselves Most important concern: manage insecurity (function of anarchic international system) Emphasis on balance of power and deterrence States increase security by increasing domestic capacities, building up economy, forming alliances of interest IR = continuous struggle for power Morality function of political consequences of policy

Neorealism (Structural Realism) Emphasis on structure of international system (vs. Realism’s emphasis on states; hence, neorealism) Structure of system determined by distribution of capabilities among states Capabilities define state’s position in system International structure is force in itself constrains state behavior states may not be able to control it international structure determines outcomes Balance of power largely determined by structure of the system Possibilities for cooperation are slim State’s survival depends on having more power than other states All power viewed in relative terms; distribution of power among states is principal form of control

Radicalism Grounded in Marxist theorizing Fundamental importance of historical analysis Of special importance is history of production – means of production, social relations, and power Assumes primacy of economics in explaining phenomena (in contrast to Liberalism and Realism) Structure of global system is hierarchical, the product of imperialism; uneven economic development inherent in capitalism Expansion result of three conditions (Hobson): overproduction in developed states underconsumption due to low wages for working class excess savings among upper class Expansion means goods find new markets, keep wages low due to foreign competition; savings profitably invested in new markets Imperialism leads to rivalry; war outcome of capitalist economic competition (Lenin) World system (Wallerstein): core, semi-periphery, periphery Dependency theorists: through MNCs and international banks, develop countries control developing states; forge transnational relationships with elites

Constructivism State behavior shaped by elite beliefs, identities, and social norms Individuals in collectivities forge, shape, and change culture through ideas and practices (hence, constructivism) State and national interests are result of social identities of actors Object of study is norms and practices of individuals and collectivities Dismiss concept of material structures Political structure (anarchy or distribution of material capabilities) explains nothing, tells us little about state behavior Emphasis on normative structures what we need to know is identity identities change through cooperation and learning whether system is anarchic depends on distribution of identities (not military capabilities) if states identifies only with itself, system may be anarchic if state identifies with other states, no anarchy Power is important, but see it as more than material terms (military, economic, political); sees power in discursive terms (ideas, culture, language); power exists in every exchange among actors

1. Is it essential to consider “levels of analysis” when thinking about IR? Use the U.S. invasion of Iraq to make your case. 2. Is Liberalism idealistic? Review the tenets of Liberalism, and identify its strengths and weaknesses. 3. Is Realism realistic? Review Realism’s basic assumptions, and identify its strengths and weaknesses. 4. What are the strengths and weaknesses of Radicalism? 5. Does Constructivism contribute to our understanding of IR? Use it to explain a particular international issue or event. 6. See Mingst, 64. According to Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” Do you agree? Do states have rights based on an international ethical and moral order, or, is a state’s power the deciding factor? In other words, does “might make right” in IR? 7. Evaluate the relative strengths and weaknesses of Liberalism, Realism, and Radicalism across each level of analysis.