BAES - Lecture 4 - Order PDF

Global (dis)orders  Agenda 1. Order and disorders 2. Types of orders (unipolarity, bipolarity and multipolarity) 3. The shift among orders in practice: from the end of Cold War till toady 4. The challengers: international and domestic 2  1. Order and Disorder ...

Global (dis)orders  Agenda 1. Order and disorders 2. Types of orders (unipolarity, bipolarity and multipolarity) 3. The shift among orders in practice: from the end of Cold War till toady 4. The challengers: international and domestic 2  1. Order and Disorder  In the discipline of International Relations, "order" refers to the structured arrangements of power, norms, institutions, and practices that shape interactions among states and other actors in the international system.  It encompasses the rules, principles, and expectations that guide behavior, reduce uncertainty, and enable cooperation or competition in global politics. 3  Why a focus on order? Order is a central concept in IR because: It Provides Stability: Order mitigates the anarchic nature of the international system, where no overarching authority governs state behavior. By establishing shared norms and rules, it reduces the likelihood of constant conflict. It Facilitates Cooperation: An established order enables states to pursue collective goals, such as economic stability, security, or environmental protection, by creating predictable interactions. It Reflects Power and Legitimacy: Order is shaped by the dominant powers, which embed their interests and values within its structures. However, for an order to endure, it must also be perceived as legitimate by other actors, balancing coercion with consent. 4  Uses of order in IR Order is used to describe and analyze historical patterns of power and governance in the international system. Scholars examine different orders to understand how power and norms have structured interactions over time, such as: Westphalian Order (1648): Based on state sovereignty and non-intervention, emerging from the Peace of Westphalia. Post-World War II Liberal Order: Led by the United States, characterized by multilateral institutions (e.g., UN, WTO), free trade, and the promotion of democracy. Emerging Multipolar Order: With the rise of powers like China and India, the liberal order is increasingly challenged, suggesting a shift toward a more fragmented or multipolar 5  Explanations of stability and change The concept of order is essential in explaining both stability and transformation in the international system: Stability: Orders endure when the dominant power maintains its leadership, and when rules align with the interests and values of key states. Change: Orders collapse or evolve when dominant powers decline (e.g., British-led imperial order) or when challengers force reconfigurations (e.g., the Cold War’s ideological division). 6  2. Types of international political orders Unipolar Bipolar Multipolar The structure of the international system—unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar—affects the behavior of states, their alliance strategies, and the nature of global stability and conflict. 7  1. Unipolar systems A unipolar system is dominated by a single superpower that holds a disproportionate amount of military, economic, and ideological influence, enabling it to shape the international order largely in its favor. Asymmetric Power Distribution: Other states are significantly weaker, reducing their ability to directly challenge the hegemon. Global Leadership: The unipolar power often establishes and enforces the rules of the international system, such as trade norms, security arrangements, and governance structures. 8  Not all superpowers are alike As John Ruggie (1992, 585) observes in his analysis of the emergence of the post- World War II international order, "had Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union ended up as the world's leading power after World War II, there is no indication whatsoever that the intentions of either country included creating anything remotely like the international institutional order that came to prevail” 9  State behavior Dominant Power's Role: The unipolar state tends to act as a global leader, providing public goods such as security (e.g., US military alliances) and economic stability (e.g., maintaining open markets). However, it may also act unilaterally, bypassing international institutions when its interests are threatened (e.g., US interventions in Iraq). Bandwagoning vs. Balancing: Lesser powers are more likely to bandwagon— aligning with the hegemon to benefit from its protection or economic opportunities— since balancing against a unipolar power is difficult. Balancing, if attempted, usually involves indirect methods, such as economic competition or soft power strategies. 10  Alliance dynamics Alliance Dependence: Alliances in a unipolar system are heavily dependent on the hegemon, which has the capacity to reward or punish its allies. Examples include NATO under US leadership and alliances in East Asia like the US-Japan security agreement. Limited Balancing Coalitions: While balancing against the unipolar power is rare, regional powers may form localized coalitions to counter specific policies (e.g., China's alignment with Russia against certain US policies). 11  Consequences Stability Debate: Proponents argue that unipolarity fosters stability because the dominant power deters potential challengers. Critics contend it can lead to overreach by the hegemon and resentment among weaker states, potentially causing instability (e.g., opposition to US dominance in the post-Cold War era). Unilateralism vs. Multilateralism: The hegemon may prioritize unilateral action, undermining multilateralism and alienating allies. This creates tensions in global governance and weakens international institutions. 12  2. Bipolar systems In a bipolar system, two superpowers dominate global politics, dividing the world into two opposing blocs with distinct ideologies, economic systems, and military alliances (e.g., US vs. USSR during the Cold War). Rigid Blocs: Alliances are relatively fixed, with each superpower maintaining exclusive spheres of influence and clear boundaries between the blocs. Mutual Deterrence: The superpowers often avoid direct conflict due to the high costs involved, especially in the case of nuclear-armed rivals. 13  State behavior Superpowers’ Behavior: The two powers focus on maintaining and expanding their spheres of influence, often through proxy conflicts, arms races, and ideological competition. Alignment Pressures on Smaller States: Lesser states face pressure to align with one bloc, often with limited neutrality (e.g., the Non-Aligned Movement). States outside the blocs risk marginalization or intervention. Arms Race and Competition: Military and technological competition between the superpowers is a hallmark of bipolarity (e.g., the US-Soviet arms race during the Cold War). 14  Alliance dynamics Tight Alliances: Alliances in bipolar systems are cohesive, with little room for defection due to mutual dependency and high stakes (e.g., NATO and the Warsaw Pact). Proxy Wars: Superpowers often compete indirectly through proxies, with alliances extending to smaller states involved in these conflicts (e.g., Vietnam War, Afghan- Soviet War). 15  Consequences Relative Stability: Bipolarity is often seen as stable because the two dominant powers check each other’s influence, reducing the likelihood of global wars. However, regional instability is common due to proxy conflicts. Ideological Divide: The global system is characterized by ideological rivalry, influencing states’ domestic and foreign policies and polarizing international institutions. 16  3. Multipolar systems A multipolar system features several significant powers, none of which is dominant enough to unilaterally shape the international system. Examples include Europe before World War I or the emerging post-Cold War world with powers like the US, China, the EU, India, and Russia. Dynamic Power Balances: Power is more evenly distributed, leading to frequent shifts in alliances and coalitions based on shared interests rather than fixed blocs. Complex Interdependence: States are connected through trade, diplomacy, and multilateral institutions, increasing interdependence and cooperation but also the potential for conflict. 17  State behavior Flexible Alignments: States pursue pragmatic and flexible foreign policies, forming temporary alliances or partnerships to achieve specific goals. For instance, countries like India maintain strategic autonomy by cooperating with both the US and Russia. Balancing as a Strategy: Balancing is more common, as states form coalitions to counter rising powers or threats (e.g., the Quad alliance against China’s assertiveness in Asia). Increased Rivalries: Competition for regional dominance and influence among multiple powers can lead to frequent conflicts, trade wars, and diplomatic disputes. 18  Alliance dynamics Shifting Coalitions: Alliances are less rigid and often issue-specific. For example, the US, EU, and Japan align on trade but differ on environmental policies. Regional Hegemonies: Regional powers, like China in Asia or Germany in Europe, may dominate local alliances and shape regional orders within the broader multipolar system. 19  Consequences Increased Instability: Multipolarity is often associated with greater instability, as the system lacks a clear leader or a stable equilibrium. The risk of miscalculation or conflict increases with multiple competing powers. Opportunities for Cooperation: Multipolarity allows for diverse multilateral frameworks and forums where states can collaborate on global issues (e.g., climate change through the Paris Agreement or trade through regional blocs). Challenges to Global Governance: The diffusion of power complicates global governance, as no single power can enforce rules or manage crises effectively. Institutions may struggle to accommodate competing interests. 20  Comparisons among the 3 systems Feature Unipolar Bipolar Multipolar Number of Major One Two Multiple Powers Unstable due to Potentially stable but Stable but with Stability frequent shifts in prone to overreach regional conflicts power Bandwagoning, Fluid, issue-specific Alliance Dynamics Fixed, rigid alliances hegemon-dominated alignments Asymmetric Proxy wars, Regional conflicts, Conflict Nature interventions ideological conflicts power rivalries Fragmented or Hegemon-led Bloc-based Global Governance contested institutions institutions governance Economic Open markets with Competing blocs’ Regionalized trade Implications hegemon’s control trade systems networks 21  3. From the Cold War to Unipolarity Cold War Dynamics and the Collapse of Bipolarity: During the Cold War (1947- 1991), the international order was defined by the rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union, two superpowers with opposing ideologies, geopolitical goals, and economic systems (capitalism vs. communism). The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 led to the end of this bipolar world, paving the way for the United States to emerge as the sole global superpower. Unipolar “Moment” and Liberal Optimism: In the 1990s, this shift toward unipolarity gave rise to a world order dominated by the US 22  The unipolar moment (1990s): key features a. Optimistic Liberal Order: In the post-Cold War 1990s, there was a strong belief that liberal democracy and free markets would spread globally, bringing peace and prosperity. The US pursued policies to promote these ideals, leading to what was perceived as a period of relative stability and order. The West believed that former socialist or authoritarian states would gradually integrate into this liberal world order. Clinton oversaw NATO’s eastward expansion, incorporating former Soviet bloc countries like Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. Scholars such as Francis Fukuyama suggested this marked the “end of history” as liberalism seemed to triumph over other ideological systems 23  b. Clinton’s Focus on Economic Globalization: President Bill Clinton’s administration emphasized economic globalization as a pathway to domestic prosperity and international stability. With the US leading, the 1990s witnessed a significant expansion of economic globalization, where international trade, financial markets, and technological advancements connected economies more closely. Organizations like the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO were instrumental in facilitating economic integration and global trade, and many countries embraced free- market reforms, believing that economic integration would lead to global stability and prosperity  this is the era of the so-called Washington consensus 24  What is the Washington consensus? what it is its relationship with the unipolar moment? 25  The Washington Consensus Term Coined by John Williamson (1989): The term "Washington Consensus" was first coined by economist John Williamson in 1989 as a way to encapsulate a set of economic policy reforms that policymakers in Washington, D.C., especially those in the U.S. Treasury, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank, recommended for Latin American countries dealing with debt crises. Williamson's intent was not to describe a global policy but rather to outline the set of reforms that seemed to have broad agreement among policymakers in Washington on how developing countries, particularly in Latin America, could achieve economic stability and growth. 26  10 policy prescriptions 1. Fiscal Discipline: Control of fiscal deficits to prevent unsustainable debt. 2. Reordering Public Expenditure Priorities: Reducing unproductive spending and reallocating funds to essential services like education and infrastructure. 3. Tax Reform: Simplifying tax codes and broadening the tax base to enhance revenue without stifling growth. 4. Liberalizing Interest Rates: Allowing interest rates to be determined by the market rather than controlled by the state 5. Competitive Exchange Rates: Maintaining an exchange rate that encourages exports and avoids overvaluation 6. Trade Liberalization: Reducing trade barriers to encourage global competition and integration. 7. Liberalization of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI): Removing restrictions on foreign investment to attract more capital 8. Privatization: Selling state-owned enterprises to increase efficiency 9. Deregulation: Reducing regulations that were viewed as inhibiting business growth and competition 10.Secure Property Rights: Protecting property rights to encourage investment and 27 economic stability.  Examples: the core components Fiscal Discipline: The Washington Consensus emphasized controlling public spending to avoid budget deficits. This was seen as crucial for macroeconomic stability, as unchecked spending and large deficits were thought to lead to inflation and unsustainable debt levels, which could destabilize the economy and erode investor confidence. Trade Liberalization: Reducing trade barriers to encourage global competition and integration Privatization: Privatizing state-owned enterprises (SOEs) was a core feature of the Washington Consensus. Privatization was seen as a way to improve efficiency by moving assets into the hands of private owners who would be motivated by profit incentives to manage them better than the government. Deregulation: Deregulation focused on reducing the rules and restrictions seen as obstacles to business and investment. By cutting red tape, it was believed that countries could foster entrepreneurship, 28 enhance competition, and create a more dynamic and resilient economy.   Promotion of Market Liberalization: The Washington Consensus viewed market liberalization as the universal path to economic stability and growth. By emphasizing a reduced role for the state and an increased reliance on market forces, it was thought that countries would become more efficient, competitive, and better integrated into the global economy. 29  How did the Washington Consensus become global? Two key aspects: 1. Conditional Lending: The IMF and World Bank played a pivotal role in promoting the Washington Consensus through conditional lending, a process where loans were provided only if the recipient country agreed to implement specified reforms. These conditions often aligned directly with the Washington Consensus policies, making them instruments for policy change in countries facing financial crises. 30  2. Influence of U.S. Policy: Given the U.S.’s dominant role in both the IMF and World Bank, U.S. policymakers strongly influenced the focus on market-oriented reforms. These reforms reflected U.S. economic priorities, such as promoting free trade and liberalizing economies to support global economic integration. 31  From 2008 crisis to multipolarity Impact of the 2008 Financial Crisis: The 2008 global financial crisis marked a turning point, revealing vulnerabilities in the US-led global order. Originating in the US housing market, the crisis quickly spread, destabilizing economies worldwide and shaking confidence in the liberal economic model that had dominated post-Cold War international relations. This economic downturn catalyzed skepticism toward globalization and liberal capitalism and weakened Western economies, allowing other powers, especially China, to gain influence on the global stage. 32  Multipolarity Following the financial crisis, the rise of China and Russia became more pronounced, challenging the unipolar order. China’s economic ascent, political assertiveness, and initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative signaled a shift toward a more multipolar world. Meanwhile, Russia under Vladimir Putin pursued a more aggressive foreign policy, evidenced by actions like the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the 2022 aggression of Ukraine. These shifts point to a world where multiple power centers (US, China, Russia, and regional actors) compete for influence, challenging the West’s previously unchallenged dominance. 33  4. The challengers a. Emerging powers (China and Russia) b. Groups of countries: BRICS c. US domestic politics and policy 34  a. New powers China’s Assertive Role under Xi Jinping: China, under President Xi Jinping, adopted a more assertive foreign policy. Initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) extended China’s economic influence across Asia, Africa, and beyond, while military modernization and territorial claims in the South China Sea challenged US influence in Asia. Xi’s policies projected China as an alternative to the US-led order, advocating for a “new era” in global politics where China would play a central role. 35  Russia’s Resurgence and Actions in Ukraine: Russia, under Putin, sought to reassert itself as a global power, challenging Western influence in Europe and its near- abroad. In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea, and in 2022, it launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, aiming to prevent NATO’s expansion and preserve its sphere of influence. These actions have severely strained Russia-West relations, leading some analysts to describe the situation as a “new Cold War.” 36  Challenges to the Liberal Order: By the 2020s, the liberal international order faced significant challenges from both inside and outside. Internal threats included nationalist-populist movements, economic inequality, and the questioning of globalization’s benefits. Externally, the rise of China and the assertiveness of Russia presented formidable geopolitical challenges, raising questions about the future viability of a Western-led order. 37  b. The BRICS Who Are the BRICS? The BRICS countries—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—represent large, diverse economies from different continents, collectively accounting for a significant portion of the world’s population, landmass, and resources. Since the 2000s, the BRICS have been seen as emblematic of the shift in global power dynamics away from a purely Western-dominated order. 38  Economically, the BRICS countries are vital players in creating a more multipolar world. China and India, in particular, have seen rapid economic growth, transforming them into influential players in the global economy. China’s economy is the largest among the BRICS and has become the world’s second- largest, while India’s population and market potential make it a significant force in both regional and global affairs. Russia, while economically smaller, has leveraged its energy resources and military capabilities to assert its influence, particularly in Eastern Europe and parts of Asia​ 39  The BRIC’s challenge The BRICS have collectively voiced critiques of the Western-centric global governance institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization (WTO). These institutions, originally designed by Western powers after World War II, have often been viewed by the BRICS as perpetuating Western economic dominance. In response, the BRICS countries have sought to develop alternative frameworks/institutions 40  The New Development Bank (NDB): Established in 2014 by the BRICS, the NDB provides financing for infrastructure and sustainable development projects in BRICS and other emerging economies. It is seen as a counter to the IMF and World Bank, offering countries an alternative without the traditional Western-imposed conditions. Contesting Trade and Economic Norms: The BRICS have collectively pushed for reforms in global economic governance to give greater voice and voting power to emerging economies. They have advocated for trade policies and international agreements that recognize the unique economic needs of developing nations and provide alternatives to Western-led globalization​ 41  Theoretical Arguments on “Rising Powers” and the Challenge to the US-Led Order In international relations theory, “rising powers” refer to countries that are growing in economic, political, and military influence, potentially reshaping the international order. Scholars debate whether these countries, particularly the BRICS, can effectively challenge the current order, especially given the dominance of the United States and its allies in global governance structures. Two main perspectives (yr Textbook) Realist Liberal 42  The realist perspective Realists argue that rising powers will inevitably seek to challenge the status quo as they gain more power. In this view, countries like China and Russia are “revisionist powers” aiming to disrupt the existing US-led order and carve out spheres of influence. Realists point to China’s assertive actions in the South China Sea, Russia’s intervention in Ukraine, and the BRICS’ attempts to create parallel institutions as examples of efforts to shift power away from the West 43  The liberal perspective Liberals argue that rising powers will ultimately seek integration within the existing order rather than complete replacement of it. While they may seek reforms, these countries benefit from the current globalized economy, as seen in China’s extensive trade with the US and Europe. Liberals believe that as these countries rise, they may be socialized into cooperative behavior within the existing institutions, albeit with reformed roles and greater autonomy​ 44  c. US politics and policy Not only external challengers. US politics has changed too 45  Obama’s “Pivot to Asia”: Recognizing China’s rising influence, the Obama administration announced a “pivot to Asia” strategy, aiming to strengthen the US’s presence in the Asia-Pacific region. This shift highlighted the growing strategic rivalry between the US and China, especially regarding issues like trade, military power, and influence in Southeast Asia. 46  Trump’s Nationalist Foreign Policy: President Donald Trump’s “America First” approach represented a significant departure from traditional US foreign policy. Trump was openly critical of globalization, questioned NATO’s relevance, withdrew from several international agreements (such as the Paris Climate Accord), and took a confrontational stance toward China, launching a trade war. His policies emphasized US sovereignty over multilateralism, which weakened the liberal international order and left allies uncertain about US commitments. 47  To wrap-up Order and disorders Types of orders (unipolarity, bipolarity and multipolarity) A recen historical overview: from the end of Cold War till today The challengers: international and domestic 48 www.unibo.it