Liberalism and Neoliberalism in IR PDF

World War II: Causes and Consequences BLOCK-III THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES 99 Studying International Relations THEORITICAL PERSPECTIVES There is no do...

World War II: Causes and Consequences BLOCK-III THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES 99 Studying International Relations THEORITICAL PERSPECTIVES There is no doubt that the discipline of IR has made huge strides since the end of the Second World War. You must know, it was not always like this. In fact, during the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries, the discipline of IR remained quite undeveloped. Writings on IR were far and few; they were chronological and often episodic. They were written with the limited purpose of either highlighting the stand of a country on some particular issue, or praise the statesman-like qualities of a leader. There were no attempts at building theories of IR – theories which could be explanatory and perhaps could also tell us something about the coming events; for instance, conflicts and wars. The origin of modern IR dates back to the formation of nation-states in 17th century. At the Peace Treaty of Westphalia, 1648 emerged the idea of sovereign nation-state, which alone could participate in international conferences and conclude treaties. There thus came the principle of external sovereignty of state and its inviolability. Hence, we often describe the modern state-based international system as the Westphalian system. Scholars have noted several stages in the evolution of the IR. But it won’t be an exaggeration to say that use of brute force to settle things was the hallmark of IR prior to the First World War. In the inter-war period, spirit of Wilsonian idealism prevailed for a while. It was believed that creation of international legal norms and organizations shall ensure peace and security. However, it is only after the end of the Second World War, one can say that IR arose as a full-fledged independent discipline. Also, the discipline thenceforth also witnessed the construction of empirical and scientific theories of IR. Post-Second World War, the discipline of IR became an exciting field for study and research. Formation of new organizations, institutions and agencies, new laws and norms, decline of European imperial states, birth of scores of new nations, Cold War and its consequences in the form of bloc politics, arms race, and development of nuclear weapons, trade negotiations under the GATT frameworks etc. led scholars to look at IR from new and different perspectives. Theoretical approaches to the study of peace and the world order studies acquired important space in International Relation. International politics acquired new dimensions which demanded the discarding of earlier idealistic, moralistic, legal and institutional studies; and their replacement by rational and scientific studies. Secondly, new empirical theories, which involved the study of power in IR, gained ground; together these power-based theories came to be known as Realist School of IR. Others were looking at growing interdependence among states; and how international institutions and processes shaped and circumscribed the choices a sovereign state could have. Such theoretical frameworks together came to be called ‘Systems theories’. And then the Cold War ended, with the disintegration of Soviet Union in 1991 and fall of socialism as an ideology. It appears that the end of Cold War had some kind of liberating effect on the world of scholarship. The dominant binary view of looking at IR, as if the choice was between capitalism and socialism only, was given a go-bye. New theoretical perspectives, called Critical theories 100 emerged: their concern was not merely to theorize the international system but Understanding International Relations how to change it too. There were defects in the prevailing theories of Realism, Interdependence etc. These dominant theories essentially reflected the interests and experiences of the great powers of Europe and North America. More than half a century after their independence, concerns of the developing countries, the least-developed countries and the small and micro-states were still not the concerns of the IR. Critical theories sought to highlight the drawbacks of the international system and the dominant discourse about it. Theoretical formulations such as Constructivism, Marxian perspectives, post-modernism, feminism, ecological and environmental perspectives, which are of problem-solving nature, gained popularity among scholars and researchers of IR. These varied theories came to be regarded as emancipatory theories. They are aimed at providing answer to questions faced by contemporary International Relations as they obtain since the end of the Cold War. As a result, these theories are purposive in nature and provide a critique of dominant dogmas of IR. These critical outlooks go beyond state and state-based idea of modernization to post-state and post-modernism – to a world where everyone would have place under the sun. Economic globalization in a sense accelerated the demise of the old IR system and has encouraged Critical theoretical outlook. At the same time, however, globalization and its trajectory so far has also invited powerful critique and popular wrath. In its present form globalization is seen serving the profit motives of the global corporate capitalism; there is search for alternative globalization – transparent and just. In Block III, as many as five Units (7 to 11) lay down these theoretical formulations. Mainstream theories of IR are essentially Eurocentric. They romanticize power, interdependence, masculinity and war mongering, and suggest building of laws and institutions as the solution for war and conflict. These theories essentially reflect the experiences, biases and interests of former European colonial powers. What about the so-called developing world or the Global South? Why developing country perspectives have never informed the mainstream theories of IR? Is it possible to develop theories; or, at least put on the agenda of IR the concerns and needs of the developing world? These are some of the questions explored in Unit 11. After going through this block, you may wonder whether traditional IR theories are able to adapt to Global South perspectives and its concerns; and, if not whether new theories and approaches are needed in their place. In answering this question, scholars have taken a wide range of differing positions. While many scholars are united around a call for justice and equality in the way that IR narratives represent the world; it cannot be said that there is one grand strategy for theorizing Global South perspectives. The arrival of ‘Asian Century’ means that locus of power is shifting to Indo- Pacific from northern Atlantic. The rise of Asia is characterized by its economic and technological dynamism. Rising powers China and India assume a more prominent role in shaping world affairs and ASEAN countries carry lots of economic and security weight around the association. The rise of Asia has 101 Theoretical Perspectives produced new trends and directions in scholarship; whereupon Asia has become a conceptual anchor for the development of non-Western approaches to the study of world politics. It is, therefore, within the Asian IR context that some of the most exciting theoretical challenges to, and innovations in, IR scholarship are being mounted and produced. Given the vast socio-cultural and political diversity found across the continent, Asian IR is made up of an array of different perspectives. In short, theoretical debates and innovations in IR and regional relations continue, ad nauseam. 102  Classical Realism & UNIT 7 CLASSICAL REALISM AND NEO- Neorealism REALISM* Structure 7.0 Objectives 7.1 Introduction 7.2 Basic Assumptions of Realism 7.3 Classical Realism 7.3.1 Thucydides 7.3.2 Kautilya 7.3.3 Machiavelli and Hobbes 7.3.4 E H Carr 7.3.5 Morgenthau 7.4 Neo-Realism or Structural Realism 7.4.1 Differences between Classical Realism and Neo-Realism 7.4.2 Defensive Realism 7.4.3 Offensive Realism 7.5 Assessment 7.6 Let Us Sum Up 7.7 References 7.8 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises 7.0 OBJECTIVES Realism has been one of the dominant perspectives in international relations since the Second World War. This unit would shed light on Realist perspective in international politics. After studying this unit, you should be able to: Explain the meaning of Classical and Neo-Realism Know the difference between these two perspectives Describe major thinkers associated with them and Analyze some of the limitations of Classical and Neo-Realism 7.1 INTRODUCTION Realism has been one of the main theoretical perspectives in international relations which gained prominence after the Second World War and continues to remain relevant even in the globalized world of 21st century. As the name suggests, Realism explains the reality of international politics (what is), in contrast to Idealist school of thought which focuses on ‘what ought to be’. Thus, as Morgenthau has claimed, realism is an empirical paradigm rather than being a normative one. Realism explains the status quo in international relations, how the order is established and maintained. The wider acceptance of realism is because of its ability to explain why states compete and go to war in international relations. Since the signing of Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, there have been over 200 wars * Dr Raj Kumar Sharma, Consultant, Faculty of Political Science, IGNOU, New Delhi 103 Theoretical Perspectives and conflicts. in international system. Realism is often also called study of power politics as it gives centrality to power in its analysis of international politics. However, there are many variants of Realism. In fact, it is best to describe realism as a set of theories which give importance to factors like national interest, state and military in world politics. It should be mentioned that apart from political thinkers, rulers, diplomats, military strategists and generals have also contributed to growth of realism as a theoretical tradition. The names include military theorist and Prussian general Carl Von Clausewitz, French diplomat Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Perigord, Austrian statesman Klemens von Matternich, former French President Charles de Gaulle and former US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger. Realism has never been a single theory, however, in all its variants, there is centrality of power and military means that states try to achieve through their policies. Realism in general, is pessimistic about the chances of radical reform in international system. There is close relationship between Realism and security studies as both of them study conflict, war and survival. Charles Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’ is echoed in international politics by theory of realism. Mainly three distinct schools of thought exist in realism, namely, classical, neo-realism or structural realism and neo-classical realism. This unit would discuss classical and neo-realism in detail. 7.2 BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF REALISM Realism is an academic approach to study international relations which is not a single, unified theory. As Jonathan Haslam points out in his No Virtue Like Necessity: Realist Thought in International Relations since Machiavelli (2002), realism is a spectrum of ideas rather than as a fixed point of focus with sharp definition. Duncan Bell has argued that Realism is possibly best defined in negative terms – in what realists reject instead of what they endorse in positive terms. Realists are united in their collective rejection of morality or ethics in international politics. They would go on to argue that justice does not operate in international relations since they are marked by potential or active competition and conflict among different states. Irrespective of the differences in various strands of realist theories, most of them share some core beliefs and assumptions which are below. Realists believe that states are primary actors in international relations and hence, they try to explain behavior of states while giving less importance to other factors. International relations are mainly a study of power and security as survival of state is paramount. This is why; states build their hard power (military power). Realism also accepts a distinction between matters of high politics and low politics. High politics includes the areas that are necessary for survival of a state like security. Areas of low politics like trade and social affairs are the ones which are not absolutely necessary for survival of a state. Human nature is dominated by ego and like humans, groups and states also have an ego. Politically, states are rational actors which are driven by their narrow self-interest. Moral and ethical considerations make way to raison d’état or reasons of state – a situation in which a state’s foreign policy is justified on the basis that its national interest is of utmost importance. 104  There is lack of government in international relations leading to anarchy. Classical Realism & Neorealism This means there is no authority to protect interests of the global community and ensure rule of law at the global level. The possibility of moral behavior rests upon the existence of an effective government that can deter and punish illegal actions. Hence, states need to rely on themselves to safeguard their national interest. To ensure their survival, states resort to balance of power (BoP). BoP does not allow a single state to gain so much military power that it can dictate terms to other countries. Balancing is of two types – external and internal. External balancing is done through building alliances while internal balancing is done by enhancing one’s own military power. For instance, India has been balancing China through both, internal and external measures. India is building its military strength on one hand while on the other, it is building close relations with countries like the US, Japan and France to balance China. Under anarchic international relations, there exists a security dilemma or spiral mode. The steps taken by one country to enhance its own security would decrease the security of other states. In such zero-sum situation, it is difficult for any state to improve its own survival without threatening the survival of other states. The threatened states then would take steps to increase their own security and this ends up in a perpetual competitive cycle. Check Your Progress Exercise 1 Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer. ii) See the end of the unit for tips for your answer. 1) What do you understand by Security Dilemma?................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7.3 CLASSICAL REALISM Classical realism has emerged as a major approach in the study of international relations after the Second World War. This approach is mainly reflected in the writings of E H Carr, Reinhold Niebuhr and Hans Morgenthau. Classical realism explains state behaviour from vantage point of human nature and holds human nature responsible for conflicts among states. However, even before realism existed as a theory, its tenets can be found in Western and non-Western political thinkers from ancient to medieval period. In an informal manner, tenets of realism can be traced to the works of ancient Greek philosopher, Thucydides in the 5th century BC. The other prominent realist thinkers in the West include Machiavelli and Hobbes. There have been non-Western thinkers like Kautilya from India and Sun Tzu and Han Feizi from China whose views would fall under the realist paradigm in international politics. Some of the main thinkers in classical realism are discussed below. 105 Theoretical Perspectives 7.3.1 Thucydides Views of Thucydides, Athenian historian and general in 5th century BC, are very often seen as the starting point of realist school in international politics. As a participant in the war between Delian League (led by Athens) and Peloponnesian League (led by Sparta), Thucydides wrote his experiences in a collection of eight books called History of the Peloponnesian War. Some of the prominent realist conceptions are reflected in his book which has prompted realists to claim that Thucydides was a realist. One of the central ideas echoed by Thucydides is that the strong should rule the weak as they have the power to do so. This was an articulation of politics based on power. In the words of Thucydides, “The strong do what they can; the weak suffer what they must”. In book 5, Thucydides covers the Melian Dialogue which is a dramatised version of conversation between Athenians and representatives from Melos (a small island which tried to be neutral in the Peloponnesian war). The Melians represent the idealist thought compared to the realist, strategic and pragmatic Athenians. When Melians resort to ideals of morality and justice while facing an invasion from Athens, Athenians argue that the powerful have a right to rule the weak (might is right) and independent states can survive only if they are powerful enough to protect their independence. They also say that justice can only exist between equals not between unequals. The moral of the dialogue is that whenever there is power imbalance between two sides, the stronger would assert itself as per its own interests. This is human nature. Around the same time, a similar and radical view of justice had been expressed by Thrasymachus, a Sophist and a renowned teacher of rhetoric. In Plato’s Republic, Thrasymachus, just like Thucydides, has defined justice as the interest of the stronger. According to realist thinker Robert Gilpin, Thucydides is a realist as he argued that men are motivated by honour, greed and fear. Other values like beauty, goodness and truth will be lost unless there are provisions for one’s security in the power struggle among social groups. 7.3.2 Kautilya Despite having intrinsic theoretical value in international politics, Kautilya’s famous work, Arthashastra has been largely ignored not only in India but outside as well which reflects the Eurocentric view of international relations. Kautilya can be easily considered as the pre-modern founding father of theory of Political Realism. Roger Boesche in his book The First Great Realist: Kautilya and His Arthashastra (2002) has argued that Kautilya was the first great, unrelenting political realist. Max Weber saw no role for any type of ideology in Arthashastra and talked about Kautilya’s trained ability to relentlessly gaze at realities of life. Supremacy of national interest, anarchic nature of inter-state relations and centrality of power in international politics are some of the ideas that are clearly reflected in Arthashastra. Classic realist, Morgenthau identifies ancient political philosophy from Greece, China and India as the starting point of his theory. The methods discussed by him to maintain a favourable balance of power include divide and rule, compensation, armaments and alliances which are similar to four upayas given by Kautilya. Henry Kissinger saw Kautilya as a combination of Machiavelli and Clausewitz. Another important point is that Arthashastra is generally perceived as a realist treatise but it is very often forgotten that Arthashastra frequently uses the word dharma which stands for morality or 106 righteousness. It is not possible for a text not to have normative and moral Classical Realism & Neorealism foundations which cites dharma as part of governance and daily life. Kautilya’s approach comes out as a holistic mix of idealism and realism. 7.3.3 Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes Italian diplomat and philosopher, Niccolo Machiavelli (15the century) and English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (16th century) too used realism and pragmatism as a backdrop in expressing their views. Machiavelli was born at a time when values like virtue and ethics were seen as an integral part of politics and inter-state relations. He ushered in modernity by changing this belief and separated politics from ethics and morality. He went on to say that all means (immoral and moral) are justified to attain certain political ends and it’s the ends that justify means. Since the Greek Sophists, such rejection of morality had not been seen in Europe. In the 15th chapter of his book, The Prince, he refers to the effective truth – the reality that is felt and experienced opposed to imagined and utopian truth of Christians and Greeks. During his life, Machiavelli saw instability and wars and through his book, The Prince, advised the King to maintain power, order and stability. Survival of the state is the main theme of his work as he says that the state has no higher duty than of maintaining itself. Primacy of state and its survival is one of the main tenets of realist approach in IR. Like Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes did not focus on international relations. But his book Leviathan had a deep impact on Classical realists like Hans Morgenthau and Neo-realist, Kenneth Waltz. Hobbes was part of the intellectual thinking that wanted to break the tradition of classical political philosophy. Idealism was part of this philosophy which believes that individuals are rational and moral having the capability to distinguish between right and wrong. Hobbes refutes this claim saying human beings are selfish, egoistic, nasty and brutish who are restless to acquire power until they die. He referred to the hypothetical situation of ‘state of nature’ in which individuals stayed before societies were formed. It was a situation in which there was no government to protect individuals and everyone has a right to everything. They attack each other for gain and to secure themselves, can invade others pre-emptively. It is a situation of war of all against all. Hobbes has said that such a state of nature also exists among all the independent nations at all times. This leads to anarchy at international level in absence of a world government. Views of Hobbes on human nature, anarchy in international relations and power politics became important pillars of realist tradition. However, a careful reading of Hobbes reveals that his approach to international relations is pacifist and he envisioned that cooperation and peace were possible in international politics. 7.3.4 E H Carr The realist approach can be categorized in four main generations. First, the interwar and wartime generation represented by E H Carr and Reinhold Niebuhr. Second, the post-war and early Cold War generation that includes Hans Morgenthau and Raymond Aron. Third is the detente generation represented by Kenneth Waltz and Robert Gilpin. The last, post-cold war generation has names like John Mearsheimer, Steven Walt and Charles Glaser. Led by E H Carr, British historian and diplomat, realism emerged as an approach in IR in response to liberal idealist approach that dominated international studies and policy after the First World War. The realists vs idealists debate is often described as the first 107 Theoretical Perspectives great debate in IR, however, some scholars negate these claims. Idealists or the Liberal Internationalists argued that conflict can be averted by international institutions and respect for international law. Some of the famous idealists include British politician and Nobel laureate Philip Noel Baker, former US President Woodrow Wilson and British academic Alfred Zimmern. From India, Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru too had an idealist approach to international politics. Idealism, in general sense, is an idea that is impractical, too perfect to be true. Idealists in IR focused on growing interdependence, unity of human beings and establishing multilateral platforms like the League of Nations. They argued that war was not the result of imperfect human nature but faulty political and social conditions which can be improved. However, with the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939, the idealist approach to IR lost acceptance. In his book, The Twenty Years Crisis (1939), E H Carr launched an academic attack on the idealists, calling them deluded and dangerous. He argued that morality is not universal but relative. He highlighted the importance of power by saying that order is achieved through power not morality. In words of Carr, morality is product of power. He was therefore critical of the British and the American intellectuals and statesmen for ignoring the role of power in international politics. He argued that states care greatly but not exclusively about power. He rejected pure realism and recognised that there is an idealist dimension to international relations but in case of a conflict between power and ideals, states choose power in policy making. 7.3.5 Hans Morgenthau E H Carr did not intend to explain the theory of realism and instead, he was more interested in giving a critical analysis of idealism and undermines its influence. The credit for expanding realism into a theoretical perspective goes to Hans J Morgenthau, a realist from early Cold War period. Morgenthau was a Jew who reached the US as a refugee having faced fascism in Germany. Due to his personal experiences, he was strongly against totalitarianism and weak foreign policy methods to deal with such tendencies as reflected in idealist approach to IR. Morgenthau was influenced by Niebuhr and Hobbes and argued that the human desire to dominate is the main cause of conflict. In his 1948 book, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, Morgenthau proclaimed that international politics is a struggle for power. American writings on international politics before the Second World War neglected importance of national power. Morgenthau’s views on realism can be understood through his six principles of political realism as explained below. Politics is governed by objective laws which have their roots in unchanging human nature. Realism perceives the world through the concept of ‘interest defined in terms of power’. Universally, interest is to be defined in terms of power; however, its meaning and interest may change. Realism is a perspective which is aware of moral importance of political action. Moral aspirations of a community or state may not find universal acceptance. As a tradition of thought, realism was distinct in its focus on the autonomy of the political realm and the decisions made within it. 108 However, there has been a selective reading of Morgenthau as the ethical Classical Realism & Neorealism dimension of his thought has remained neglected which he considered equally important. By mid-1960s, Morgenthau was convinced that the lesson of realism had been overlearned in the US. He argued that realism minus ethical considerations was the reason behind American intervention in Vietnam and that is why; he opposed this move in American foreign policy. Check Your Progress Exercise 2 Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer. ii) See the end of the unit for tips for your answer. 1) Discuss E H Carr’s critique of idealism?................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7.4 NEO-REALISM OR STRUCTURAL REALISM Neo-realism attempted to transform classical realism with application of methods and language of modern social sciences. It was impact of behaviouralism that attempts were made to use concepts of science and reasoning in IR theory to replace the normative approach used by classic realists like Morgenthau. In 1950s and 1960s, scholars from diverse backgrounds came to study IR and new research methods like game theory and quantitative research began to creep in the study of international relations. Moreover, in the 1970s, the detente between the US and Soviet Union led to a decline in tensions between the two superpowers. At the same, new actors like the Non-alignment movement, international economic institutions and other non-governmental organisations emerged as prominent actors in international politics. As a result of these developments, pluralism and liberalism once again began to gain influence in the international studies. It is in this context that Kenneth Waltz wrote his book, Theory of International Politics (1979). In this book which was greatly influenced by theories and models of microeconomics, Waltz addressed the defects of classical realism. Drawing a parallel between the market and international relations, Waltz agued that they both operate without any defined order. States are like firms in a domestic market and the primary aim of both (state and firm) is to survive through competition in a system where self-help is the rule. Neo-realism explains why states despite variation in their internal factors behave in similar ways and why the notion of interdependence is not going to succeed in international politics. Similar behaviour of states is due to the structure of international relations which is anarchic in nature. Absence of any central authority in international politics leads to anarchy which is the ordering principle in IR. Anarchy and egoism impede cooperation between states. States are the primary units in the international system and each unit performs the same function of survival. Hence, there is no functional differentiation between the units. In an anarchic system, each unit (state) performs the same function of survival. In 109 Theoretical Perspectives such a scenario, their relative capability (power) becomes important to perform the same function. A more powerful state has more chances to survive. According to Waltz, there are two main factors which impede cooperation in anarchic international system – insecurity and relative gains. Every state remains concerned about the intentions of the other state leading to insecurity. For instance, since arms control agreements cannot be independently verified, states would engage in costly arms race. A state would also consider whether its own gains under interdependence outweigh those of the others. This would limit the possibility of cooperation. Analysing the nature of America-Soviet Union relations, neo-realists would argue that the US opposed the Russian Revolution and remained hostile to USSR for two decades after it. However, Nazi Germany under Hitler emerged as a common enemy and despite their internal (ideological) differences and history of enmity; both the US and the USSR cooperated against the common enemy. After the Second World War, both the superpowers again became adversaries leading to the Cold War. The rivalry between the two countries was induced by the structure of international politics and not their domestic factors (although they may have intensified it). In a bipolar system, both powers see each other as a threat and would balance against each other. Hence, the Cold War was a natural result of bipolarity. 7.4.1 Differences between Classical Realism and Neo-Realism The differences between Classical Realism and Neo-Realism are explained below. The first difference pertains to the question – why states want power? According to the classic realists, the answer is human nature. They would argue that great powers are led by individuals who want to accumulate power and have their state dominate its rivals. Neo-realism traces it to the structure of international system. In an anarchical international system, states cannot trust each other’s intentions and it makes sense for them to be powerful enough to protect themselves in case they are attacked. Neo-realism is also called structural realism as it gives central importance to the anarchical structure of international politics. Second, for classic realists, power is an end in itself while for the neo-realists, power is a means to an end and the ultimate end for a state is survival. Third, neo-realism followed a different methodology as it relied on methods drawn from microeconomics. It, therefore, claims to be more systematic and scientific than classic realism. Neo-realism was influenced by the behaviouralist revolution of the 1960s while classic realism is based on subjective interpretation of international politics. 7.4.2 Defensive Realism There are differences within structural realists on how much power is enough for a state. There are two views on this question. The first one is given by the defensive realists and the main proponents include Kenneth Waltz, Jack Snyder and Stephen Van Evera. Defensive realists argue that since states want security, it is possible to have an international equilibrium that is stable through balancing. They reject the argument of offensive realists that states seek hegemony and say that it is strategically foolish to pursue hegemony. States want an appropriate amount of power, not hegemony due to a number of factors. First, if any state becomes too 110 powerful, other states will balance against it. Second, conquest is feasible but it Classical Realism & Neorealism would not pay as its costs outweigh the benefits. Due to nationalism, it is difficult to subdue the conquered. These factors would limit the appetite for power of a state, otherwise, they risk threatening their own survival. 7.4.3 Offensive Realism John Mearsheimer in his The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001), has portrayed offensive realism as the successor to Kenneth Waltz’s neo-realism. He argues that states seek to maximize power instead of security. States constantly seek opportunities to maximise their power and hegemony is their ultimate goal. This makes it harder to achieve equilibrium in international politics through balancing. Offensive realists argue that often, balancing is inefficient which allows an aggressor to take advantage of its adversaries. Threatened states sometimes resort to buck passing instead of joining a coalition against an adversary. This means that they remain on the sidelines while depending on other states to check the potential adversary. Such behaviour encourages aggression. Offensive realists have also argued that more often than not, history shows that a side that initiates war wins. Hegemony may be difficult to achieve but the US had gained hegemony in the western hemisphere in 19th century. Check Your Progress Exercise 3 Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer. ii) See the end of the unit for tips for your answer. 1) What are the differences between classical realism and neo-realism?................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2) Explain the differences between defensive and offensive realism.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7.5 ASSESSMENT The rise of international relations as a discipline and realist approach to IR has been synonymous with each other. With all its shortcomings, realism has been the most dominant theory in IR which has profoundly influenced the other approaches in the discipline. Critics have argued that realism takes an extreme view of human nature by treating humans as selfish and nasty. Realism would 111 Theoretical Perspectives fail to explain why peace and cooperation exists between various states. Responding to neo-realism, Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye have given their concept of complex interdependence. They have argued that complex interdependence is closer to reality of world politics than realism. Further, they state that states are not the only actors in international politics and there is presence of multinational corporations and international non-governmental organizations which connect societies. Neo-liberals have accepted that the international system is anarchic but they do not believe it will lead to conflict and emphasis centrality of cooperation in international politics. Realism would not have predicted the fall of Soviet Union and the end of Cold War as it gives more focus to state as a unit and ignores certain actions of citizens that can threaten the survival of a state. One of the main reasons for the fall of USSR was that in many of its republics, citizens revolted against the Soviet leadership and demanded freedom and independence. Realist approach does not address the new threats to a state – climate change and terrorism. Terrorist groups like the Islamic State or Al Qaeda are also called non-state actors and realism does not have much to say about non-state actors. Critical perspective has challenged the inequality and injustice in IR and raised issues that are often ignored by mainstream theories like realism. For instance, feminists have argued that the role of women in creating and sustaining international politics has remained on the fringes and feminist approach tries to analyze international politics from the eyes of women. J N Tickner’s critique of Morgenthau has been discussed in Unit 10 of this course. Contrary to materialist and individualist interpretation of IR given by realism, constructivism gives more importance to ideational factors like norms, rules and identity. They argue that identity is socially constructed. Instead of focusing on distribution of power, constructivism gives importance to distribution of identities. Despite all the criticism, realism has an important role to caution policymakers against high idealism and morality so that they do not lose touch with the real picture based on power and national interest. However, if it becomes a dogmatic practice, realism can be used to justify aggression and war. 7.6 LET US SUM UP Realism as an approach has many strands. However, the realists agree on a number of issues. They agree that international politics is power politics and states are the main actors in IR. They also stand united in saying that anarchy exists at international level and there is security dilemma that states face. Classical realism and neo-realism have certain differences while the neo-realists are further divided in two camps – defensive realism and offensive realism. Realism has an important role to caution policymakers against high ideals but too much emphasis on realism can lead to war and aggression. 7.7 REFERENCES Aron, Raymond. (1966). Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations. trans. Richard Howard and Annette Baker Fox. Garden City. New York: Doubleday. Bell, Duncan. (2017). Realism. Encyclopedia Britannica. URL: https:// www.britannica.com/topic/realism-political-and-social-science 112 Bell, Duncan. (ed.). (2008). Political Thought in International Relations: Classical Realism & Neorealism Variations on a Realist Theme. Oxford. Oxford University Press. Carr, E. H. (1946). The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. 2nd edition. New York. St Martin’s Press. Donnelly, J. (2005). Realism in Andrew Linklater et. al. (eds) Theories of International Relations. 3rd Edition. Palgrave. Macmillan. Gilpin, R. G. (1981). War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. Korab-Karpowicz, W Julian. (2017). Political Realism in International Relations. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ realism-intl-relations/ Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York. Norton. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2016). Structural Realism in Tim Dunne et. al. (eds) International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Oxford. OUP. Morgenthau, Hans. (1960). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. 3rd ed. New York. Knopf. Niebuhr, Reinhold. (1932). Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study of Ethics and Politics. New York. Charles Scriber’s Sons. Thucydides. (1954). History of the Peloponnesian War. trans. Rex Warner. London. Penguin Books. Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Reading MA. Addison- Wesley. Wohlforth, William C. (2008). Realism in Christian Reus-Smit and Duncan Snidal (ed) The Oxford Handbook of International Relations. Oxford. OUP. 7.8 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS EXERCISES Check Your Progress Exercise 1 1) Your answer should highlight following points: i) Exists under anarchic international relations, ii) Also called spiral mode, iii) Steps taken by one country to enhance its own security would decrease the security of other states , iv) Threatened states then would take steps to increase their own security , v) This ends up in a perpetual competitive cycle Check Your Progress Exercise 2 1) Your answer should highlight following points: i) E H Carr launched an academic attack on the idealists, ii) Called them deluded and dangerous , iii) Argued morality is not universal but relative, iv) Highlighted the importance of power, v) Morality is product of power. 113 Theoretical Perspectives Check Your Progress Exercise 3 1) Your answer should highlight following points: i) Differences over why states want power (human nature vs anarchy), ii) Differences over the concept of power, iii) Neo-realism influenced by microeconomic theory, more scientific. 2) Your answer should highlight following points i) Defensive realists believe it stable international equilibrium is possible via balancing, ii) Offensive realists argue states want maximum power and want hegemony, balancing is not possible. 114  Classical Realism & UNIT 8 LIBERALISM AND Neorealism NEO-LIBERALISM* Structure 8.0 Objectives 8.1 Introduction 8.2 The Liberal Tradition: Main Characteristics 8.3 Classical Liberalism 8.4 Liberal Approach in the Post War Years 8.4.1 Sociological Liberalism 8.4.2 Functionalism 8.4.3 Interdependence Liberalism 8.4.4 Republican Liberalism 8.5 Neo-Liberal Approach 8.5.1 A Break with Traditional Liberalism 8.5.2 The Neo-Neo Debate in IR 8.5.3 The Darker Side of Neo-Liberalism 8.6 Let Us Sum Up 8.7 References 8.8 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises 8.1 OBJECTIVES Liberalism is an eminent theory of international relations (IR). It has several dimensions. The objective is to explore the definitions, history and the various theoretical standpoints of liberalism. This unit introduces you to the key thinkers on the subject. Besides, it also helps to understand the key concepts associated with it. After reading this unit, student shall be able to: Identify the core principles of liberalism in the years before the Second World War Describe the major liberal theories that evolved in the post-war period Identify the core features of neoliberal approach to study IR Identify the core features of the Neo- Neo debate Describe the liberal vision of society, state and market Explore key aspects of neoliberalism and the evolution of international political economy 8.1 INTRODUCTION Like Realism, Liberalism (and its current variant neo-liberalism) is a mainstream approach to understand international politics. And, like Realism it is a name given to a family of related theories of international relations. It has a multidimensional tradition dating back to the 17th and 18th centuries. Historically, the liberal tradition emerged as a critique of feudal political rule. It also emerged * Dr. Avipsu Halder, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Calcutta 115 Theoretical Perspectives as a critique of mercantilism, the dominant economic strategy of those times. Liberalism is also a rich tradition of thought concerning international relations. In this unit, we are concerned mainly with the latter dimension of liberalism. In the 18th and 19th centuries, liberal philosophers and political thinkers debated the difficulties of establishing just, orderly and peaceful relations between peoples. A systematic account of the problems of world peace was given by Immanuel Kant in 1795. His ideas have had a profound impact on the development of liberalism in international relations. In the 19th century, solutions to the problem of war evaded even the most eminent of thinkers. Much of the liberal scholarship became content with diplomatic history until the outbreak of the First World War. The Great War and the destruction that it caused forced the liberal thinkers to find new means to prevent violent conflicts and create conditions in which reason and cooperation would prevail. Basing their premise on the inherent goodness of man, these liberal thinkers focused on negotiations, rule of law and establishing stable international institutions. The widespread anti-war sentiment within Europe and North America which existed in the 1920s provided the necessary support for the liberal enterprise. However, the failure of the League of Nations and the outbreak of the Second World War led to the marginalisation of liberal thought that was infused with idealism. Realism came to the fore as it seemed to provide a better explanation of the power politics of the Cold War that came to dominate international relations. Nevertheless, innovations in liberal tradition continued leading to the development of a number of theories to explain the developments in international relations. Prominent among them are sociological liberalism (or transnationalism), pluralism, interdependence theory, liberal internationalism, liberal peace theory, world society and neo-liberal approaches. In the early 1980s when conflict between major powers had receded and cooperation in pursuit of mutual interests had emerged as a prominent feature of world politics, a new paradigm or framework of analysis emerged in the liberal tradition- Neoliberal Internationalism. As this approach emerged in response to the development of neorealism, it is also called as the Neoliberal approach. This new approach infused greater scientific rigor in liberal scholarship. In the 1990s, regional and international economic integration (globalisation) on the one hand and new issues, such as multiculturalism, democracy, environment on the other, have led liberalism to focus on international order, institutions and processes of governance, human rights, democratisation, peace and economic integration. The focus of this unit is on the dominant features of the liberal tradition in the years before the Second World War and the important trends in the evolution of liberalism in the post-war years, focusing in particular on the neo-liberal approach. 8.2 THE LIBERAL TRADITION: MAIN CHARACTERISTICS Liberal theorists have strong faith in human reason. This characteristic can be traced back to the ideas of John Locke (1632-1704) who argued that reason is 116 necessary for arriving at truth and right action. Reason is necessary for Liberalism & Neo-Liberalism understanding and shaping nature and society. According to the liberal theorists, human beings are capable of shaping their destiny, including international relations and moulding the negative ramifications of the absence of a world government. Secondly, liberal theorists believe in the possibility of historical progress. Human reason and processes of social learning make progress possible. In the liberal conception therefore, mankind is not doomed to live in a state of perpetual conflict, but can choose political strategies to avoid it. In other words, liberal theorists argue that it is possible and desirable to reform international relations. Thirdly, liberal theorists focus on state-society linkages and claim the existence of a close connection between domestic institutions and politics on the one hand and the international politics on the other. Since the publication of Perpetual Peace (1795) by German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) many liberal theorists became convinced that there is a causal link between the form of domestic regime and the possibility of war. Kant had specifically claimed that ‘republican’ (that is, democratic) states are more peaceful at least vis a vis one another. The contemporary idea of theory of democratic peace can be traced to this idea of Kant Liberal theorists are pluralists as well. They believe that state is only one actor both in within a society and on the international stage. They challenge the realist assumption that states are the only actors in international politics. Liberals argue that there are many actors in world politics which play a vital role in influencing international outcomes. The liberal tradition highlights the importance of non- state actors such as MNCs and NGOs. Fifth, some liberal theorists, following David Ricardo ((1772-1823) and Richard Cobden (1804-65), champion free trade as increasing interdependence among states reduces the likelihood of war. They reject mercantilism which regarded economic growth and war as compatible goals. Liberals argue that free trade is preferable to mercantilism as trade produces wealth without war. As we shall see later, these ideas have formed the basis of an entire current of thinking: interdependence liberalism. Liberal theorists also place great emphasis on institutions. They believe that Institutions are necessary to protect and nurture the core values like order, liberty, justice and tolerance in politics. They therefore championed the creation of the League of Nations after the World War I. They were convinced that the League as an international organisation could prevent war better than the alternatives, including the traditional balance of power politics. 8.3 CLASSICAL LIBERALISM Classic liberalism is the name given to liberal thought in the pre-Second World War years. As we saw, liberalism bestowed importance on the idea of human reason. It believes that all individuals are rational creatures. Hence, they are in a better position to decide what is for their own good. It is precisely because human beings are driven by the logic of reason that they have a tendency to cooperate with one another, especially in areas where they have common interest. Such cooperation can occur both domestically and internationally (Jackson and Sorensen 2008: 98). Liberalism focuses on the idea of individual liberty. The 117 Theoretical Perspectives basics of classical liberalism can be found in the ideas of Adam Smith, John Locke and Jeremy Bentham. John Locke (1688) is known as the father of classical liberalism. He argued that government should rule by the consent of the governed. Locke argued the case of limited government. The main responsibility of the government is to protect the rights and liberties of its citizens. Adam Smith (1776) believed in the idea of ‘economic man’. Smith believed that if every individual tries to maximize their self-interest, it will lead to overall economic prosperity in the society. Smith coined the term laissez faire economy. According to this idea, the market the state shall not interfere in the activities of the market. Smith visualized that a free market can bring about overall national prosperity. Bentham introduced the concept of the ‘greatest happiness of the greatest number’. Thus, individuals should focus on those activities which maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain. Bentham also proposed that there should be an international court. The spirit of Bentham’s idea can be observed in the structures and functions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) (Sutch and Elias 2010). In the early 20th century, liberal thinkers dominated both scholarship on international relations and policy making. In fact, the establishment of the academic discipline to address international relations was essentially a liberal project. The academic discipline emerged specifically in order to improve our understanding of international relations and in turn to improve or reform the relations. Liberal thinking at that time traced the causes of the World War I to fatal misperceptions among political elite, secret diplomacy and lack of democracy, war prone military establishments, lack of international institutions etc. Liberals played an important role in designing a political programme to address these issues in the immediate years after the World War I. In doing so, they made a significant mark on the dominant foreign policies of the day. Much of their agenda is reflected in the Fourteen Points programme speech delivered by the US President Woodrow Wilson in January 1918. The main features of the Fourteen Point programme are as follows: ‘Open covenants of peace openly aimed at’ – This means that that the process of international diplomacy should be transparent in character. It means that states shall no longer be able to enter into secret alliances with one another. Following this logic, liberalism gives importance to the formation of international institutions so that it can enshrine laws, and rules for the states to follow. ‘Removal of economic barriers’ – This flows from the liberal belief that as economic cooperation among states increases, they will not go to war. ‘National Self-determination’ – Every state should try to achieve democracy. ‘Associations of Nations’ – States should form associations among themselves which would guarantee their territorial integrity and political independence. 118 On the basis of these principles, the League of Nations was established in 1919 Liberalism & Neo-Liberalism at the Paris Peace Conference. The League was intended to restore peace and prevent war. Member countries of the League were to protect the territorial integrity of other fellow members on the basis of collective security. Collective security is based on the idea of ‘one for all, and all for one’, that is, each state in the collective accepts that the security of one is the concern of all, and agrees to join in a collective response to aggression. This is different from Collective Defence or an alliance of a number of states joining together in response to a specific threat or for a specific issue of cause. The liberal programme succeeded in influencing policy making but failed in avoiding conflict and war. Instead of a bright post-war future, it led to, what is referred to as the ‘Twenty Years’ crisis (E.H. Carr, 1939) and eventually to the World War II. During these years, with the United States not joining the League and the emergence of Nazism and Fascism in Europe, liberal ideas and strategies could not flourish. The collective security system too collapsed. Towards the fag end of the World War II, the major powers decided to give the liberal agenda a big push by establishing more advanced forms of international institutions, the United Nations and later the European Community. 8.4 LIBERAL APPROACH IN THE POST-WAR YEARS In the four decades after World War II, the Cold War conflict between the two superpowers assumed global proportions. The Realist school that had come into dominant position in academia and policy making in Europe and North America dismissed the liberal approach as utopian or idealistic. Yet, despite their theory- turned-practice failures, liberal thinkers managed to build new theories and achieve a significant share in the research agenda of international relations. These theories (Sociological Liberalism, Functionalism, Interdependent Liberalism and Republican Liberalism) as well as their assumptions have formed the basis for the emergence of a new conceptual framework, the Neoliberal approach (also known as the Liberal Institutional approach). 8.4.1 Sociological Liberalism Sociological liberalism came into being during the closing stages of the nineteenth century and continued to flourish until the mid-20th century. The writings of Richard Cobden (1903), Karl Deutsch (1957) and John Burton (1972) elaborately explain the ideas. Importantly, Cobden argues that interactions across the world can take place between different societies. This form of liberalism makes a strong case for pluralism in IR. According to this view, people and social groupings relate with one another and form networks across the globe. As we saw in the last unit, realists give importance only to ‘official’ and ‘formal’ relations among states. Sociological liberalism rejects this view as too narrowly focused and one- sided. It points to the other actors, other than states, in IR. Sociological Liberalism puts forward the idea of transnationalism whose key features are as follows: Private groups and societies are important agents of international politics These groups help states to achieve their objectives in international relations 119 Theoretical Perspectives The relations between people across different societies are friendlier in nature. They are always eager to support one another. It helps them to develop peaceful relations among themselves. They can formulate networks among themselves around the world. It can lead to the formation of global societies (Rosenau 1980). Another key thinker of this school, Karl Deutsch introduced the idea of ‘security community’. It means that regular interaction among people can lead to the development of a ‘community feeling’ among themselves (Deutsch et al. 1957). It would reduce the possibility of conflict among states. John Burton in his book, World Society (1972) also discusses the interactions which take place among different social, economic and cultural groups across the globe. This network is known as the ‘cobweb’ model. It reduces the chances of conflict in world politics (Jackson and Sorensen 2008; Little 1996). In sum, sociological liberalism believes that overlapping interdependent relations between people are bound to be more cooperative than relations between states because states are exclusive and their interests do not overlap and cross-cut. A world with a large number of transnational networks will thus be more peaceful. 8.4.2 Functionalism The functionalist theorists such as David Mitrany and Ernst Haas argue that if states cooperate in any one aspect, they would be able to do so in other fields. Although the primary focus of functionalism is on the economic cooperation among states, its underlying assumption was that economic cooperation would allow them to cooperate in the political domain as well (Leiber 1972: 42). In other words, cooperation in one field will have a spill over effect (Jensen 2010: 272) eventually giving rise to a supranational authority (such as the European Union – EU). Functionalism in International Politics can be understood in a better manner by observing the history of the formation of the EU. It began with the emergence of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1952. The European economies which were devastated by the World War II began giving more importance to economic revival. It was based on the belief that cooperation can prevent war and conflict among nations. Peace can be restored if states collaborate with one another in the realm of trade, culture, transport and communication. Indeed, since the establishment of ECSC, there has been a growing economic and political cooperation among European nations leading to common policies in agriculture, currency, security etc. This eventually led to the establishment of the European Union, the EU in 1993. The EU is an example of political, economic and monetary union. The EU makes a strong case in favour of ‘pooling of sovereignty’. It means that states are not surrendering their sovereign power. But they are trying to create a condition which can help them to achieve power sharing (Leiber 1973: 42- 43). 8.4.3 Interdependence Liberalism This concept came into the parlance of international politics during the latter part of the 1970s. Robert O’ Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, who developed this concept point out that all actors of international relations – state and non-state 120 are mutually dependent on one another. International politics works on the basis Liberalism & Neo-Liberalism of collaboration of these various actors. Interdependence takes place due to the transnational flow of money, people, goods, services and communication. In their book, Power and Interdependence (2001), Keohane and Nye identify three main features of interdependence: There are multiple channels of connection that link societies and peoples. It includes informal ties between a) government officials; b) non-governmental individual; and, c) members of transnational organizations. These classifications communicate the idea that transnational connections important in world politics. This understanding is different from realism. There are multiple issues in world politics. It means that in international politics, there is no hierarchy of issues. Liberalism therefore challenges statesmen across the world who give priority only to military and security issues. It argues that there are certain issues of domestic politics of a country that may have a worldwide impact. There can be a connection between national issues of a country with an international event. Liberal theorists call this as linkage strategy (Burchill 2013). For example, financial breakdown in one country may have a negative impact on the world economy. 8.4.4 Republican Liberalism Republican liberalism is inspired by the ideas of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and contemporary American scholar, Michael Doyle. It postulates that democratic governments have positive features and that they do not go to war with one another. This is the central idea of the democratic peace thesis. This thesis poses a challenge to the realist claims that peace depends on the systemic balance of power rather than the domestic nature of the governments. Michael Doyle (1983, 1986) who has developed Kant’s perpetual peace theory explains why democracies are at peace with one another. First, the existence of domestic political cultures based on peaceful conflict resolution encourages peaceful international relations. Government controlled by their citizens, will not advocate or support wars with other democracies. Second, democracies hold common moral values which lead to the formation of what Kant called a ‘pacific union’ (not a formal treaty, but rather a zone of peace). Freedom of expression and free communication promote mutual understanding internationally, and help to assure that political representatives act in accordance with citizens’ views. Finally, peace between democracies is strengthened through economic cooperation and interdependence. In the pacific union it is possible to encourage what Kant called ‘the spirit of commerce’: mutual and reciprocal gain for those involved in international economic cooperation and exchange. Republican liberalism, therefore, advocates promotion of democracy worldwide to achieve peace, one of the most fundamental values of all political values. In this sense, it is one of theories with a strong normative element. 121 Theoretical Perspectives Check Your Progress Exercise 1 Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer. ii) See the end of the unit for tips for your answer. 1) What are the features of the idea of transnationalism?................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8.5 NEO-LIBERAL APPROACH We have seen in the last unit that there was a new positivist orientation and shift in the scope of the Realist approach that has come to be called Neo-realism or structural realism. A similar shift occurred in Liberalism, largely as a reaction to the rise of Neorealism. Two seminal works that marked a break from the existing liberal tradition in international relations are Robert Keohane’s After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (1984) and Robert Axelrod’s Evolution of Cooperation (1981). While the former focused on complex interdependence, the latter applied game theory to explain how cooperation emerges and persists. These publications introduced a new conceptual framework in liberal studies which has come to be called as Neo-liberalism. The use of the ‘neo-liberal’ label is no doubt because the theories developed by Keohane and Axelrod shared a lot with neo-realism. They accepted the two basic assumptions of international anarchy and rational egoism of states to show that it was possible for rational egoists to cooperate even in anarchic systems. They also drew on material from the same kind of sources as the neorealists- in particular game theory, public choice and rational choice theory. 8.5.1 A Break with Tradtional Liberalism Neo-liberalism differed from classical liberalism in several important ways. To begin with Liberal thought had not addressed the question of anarchy in the international system. Neo-liberals accepted the neorealist proposition that the international system is anarchic, but rejected the realist assertion that this condition would lead to conflict. Instead, Neo-liberals emphasised the centrality of cooperation in international politics. An important question that they pose to the Realists is “If the anarchic international system necessarily creates a self-help environment-a war of all against all as Hobbes suggested -then why is war not more common?” Neo-liberals also differ from classical liberals on the causes of conflict. As we saw, liberalism had emphasized on the centrality of human nature and argued that conflict and war was the result of bad actors or failure of cooperation. Neo- liberalism, on the other hand, stress on the importance of international institutions in structuring international environment in ways that mitigates against anarchy. In other words, causes for conflict cannot be traced to human nature, but to the 122 presence or absence of international institutions. Neo-liberals assert that Liberalism & Neo-Liberalism international institutions perform the following tasks: 1) Encourage communication and dialogue between states creating a forum to negotiate their differences. 2) Promote transparency in interaction between states and in the agreements that they negotiate. 3) Help to shape expectations and to develop collective international norms that offer stability and predictability in global politics 4) Establish a framework to promote reciprocity and bargaining between states facilitating the peaceful resolution of disputes. They permit the coordination of policy to address tensions in collective action problems and thus help to avoid the security and prisoners’ dilemmas. It is because of the importance placed on global institutions that the Neo-liberal theory of international relations is also referred to as Neo-liberal Institutionalism. Secondly, Neo-Liberalism differs with Liberalism on the question of important actors in global politics. Liberalism tends to emphasise the importance of individual agents as actors in global politics. Individual choice and psychology tend to play an important role in the Liberal explanations and analysis. In sharp contrast, Neo-liberals accept the Realist assertion that the state is the most important actor though they add international institutions as essentially as collections of states as well. Other actors would include non state actors like MNCs and NGOs. They accept the Neorealist claim that the state is a rational actor and that it engages in cost benefit analysis in pursuit of defined goals. Liberals would not be necessarily comfortable with this claim. Finally, Neo-liberalism differs with Liberalism in its analysis of conflicts. Liberalism is generally historical and philosophical in their orientation, explaining conflict in specific historical context. It draws extensively on fields like political theory and philosophy. Neo-liberal explanations of conflicts, on the other hand, tend to be more focused on ahistorical structural explanations. Neo-liberals draw extensively from game theory and behavioural economics rather than history and philosophy in their analysis. Neo-liberals often use concepts from game theory to show how the structure of the international system can force particular outcomes or can lead to situations where rational decision making which may appear to be rational but which lead to suboptimal outcomes. 8.5.2 The Neo-Neo Debate in IR If we are to examine the emergence of liberalism and neoliberalism as an academic discipline, it is necessary to focus on the Great Debates of IR. The First Great Debate between realism and liberal internationalism showed how the failure of the League of Nations proved that the idea of harmony of interest was not correct. Historians such as E.H Carr termed liberal internationalism as ‘utopianism’ and ‘idealism’ (Brown and Ainley 2009: 26). The Second Great Debate between Behaviouralism and Post-behaviouralism focused on whether IR should be studied by taking help from methods of natural science or it should be done by taking a more value-based approach (Daddow 2013: 70). The third Great Debate in international relations between Neo-realism and Neo-Liberalism (the neo-neo debate) gives a detailed understanding of neoliberalism in IR as an approach to 123 Theoretical Perspectives study. Both neorealism and neoliberalism believe that states are rational actors. But there are certain differences between them. They are as follows: Neorealism and Neoliberalism accept that there is anarchy in the international system (Baldwin 1993). Neorealism argues that due to anarchy, states will never cooperate with one another. They will always compete with each other. Neorealists feel that cooperation depends upon the will of the state. The neoliberals on the other hand point out that states do cooperate with one another on those issue areas where they have similar interests (Lamy 2008: 133). Neorealism focuses on survival. Hence, use of force cannot be avoided. On the other hand, the neoliberal school believes in the idea of complex interdependence (Baldwin 1993). The neorealists have given importance to ‘high politics’ such as military and diplomacy. For the neo-liberals, trade and economic activities are more important. (Keohane and Nye 2001: 28). Neo-liberals are optimistic about cooperative behaviour and therefore argue in favour of absolute gains. When states are conducting economic interactions, it leads to a positive sum game. All parties involved in the process benefit. Neo-realism, on the other hand, holds that states compete with one another and therefore there can be only relative gains (Lamy 2008: 133). Neo-realism throws light on capabilities of the states. They feel that states are always uncertain about the intentions of other states. Neo-liberalism gives more importance to the preferences and intentions of states. Neo-liberals argue that international regimes play an important role world politics. They can help states to cooperate among themselves. Neo-realism does not agree with this point (Baldwin 1993). From the above, it is evident that there is much in common between the neo- realism and neo-liberalism. Scholars outside the United States as well as those who work outside these paradigms therefore call it a ‘neo-neo synthesis’. Moreover, they argue that the neo-neo debate has not advanced IR scholarship as a whole. Instead it has narrowed the field to a superficial enquiry based on questionable assumptions (such as anarchy) and methodologies that may or may not be suitable to the discipline. 8.5.3 The Darker side of Neo-Liberalism A number of studies based on the neoliberal approach have emerged since the 1980s. However, almost all studies have focused on the experience of Western countries with international interdependence and regimes. As Robert Cox has observed, “regime theory has much to say about economic cooperation among the Group of 7 (G- 7) and other groupings of advanced capitalist countries with regard to problems common to them. It has correspondingly less to say about attempts to change the structure of world economy, e.g. in the Third World demand for a 124 New International Economic Order (NIEO). Indeed, regimes are designed to Liberalism & Neo-Liberalism stabilize the world economy and have the effect, as Keohane has underlined in his work, of inhibiting and deterring states from initiating radical departures from economic orthodoxy, e.g. through socialism.” (Cox, 1992,173) The principal cooperative institution of the Global South during the Cold War, the Nonaligned Movement (NAM) has received scant attention from the Neoliberal theorists. Secondly, these theories would ‘assume, rather than establish, regimes as benevolent, voluntary, cooperative and legitimate’ (Kieley, 1990, 90), a highly questionable assumption when one considers the exclusionary nature of some of the regimes and multilateral institution, at least from the point of Global South. Consider the case of those Latin American countries which have experienced economic inequality as a result of privatization and Structural Adjustment Policy (SAP). Bolivia, Venezuela and other Latin American nations have expressed their voices in protest of the neoliberal economic policies (Lamy 2008: 136). Moreover, it needs to be remembered that due to the increased mobility of capital, the government of states have faced difficulties in taxing the profits incurring from privatization-led development projects (Rodrik 1997). Had the government been able to earn revenues from these projects, it could have been channelized towards the development of social sectors such as health, education and social security measures. Hence, it can be argued that as a theory, neoliberalism is a construct of the developed world. As Robert Cox famously argued, ‘Theory is always for someone and for some purposes’ (Cox 1981: 128). Check Your Progress Exercise 2 Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer. ii) See the end of the unit for tips for your answer. 1) List the differences between neoliberalism and neorealism.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 8.6 LET US SUM UP Liberalism has strong faith in human reason and rationality. They also focus on state-society linkages and argue that there is close connection between domestic institutions and politics on one hand and international politics on the other hand. Liberalism also contradicts the realist claim that states are the only actors in international politics. They champion free trade to increase interdependence among states to avoid war. In its new version, neo-liberal approach differs from liberalism. The liberal approach did not address the question of anarchy in international politics. Liberals and neo-liberals also differ on the causes of conflict 125 Theoretical Perspectives among states. As a theory, neo-liberalism is a construct of the developed world and the perspectives from Global South have not found a considerable mention in this approach. 8.7 REFERENCES Baldwin, David (eds.). (1993). Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate. New York. Columbia University Press. Blair Alasdair and Steven Curtis. (2009). International Politics: An Introductory Guide. Edinburgh. Edinburgh University Press. Brown, Chris and Kirsten Ainley. (2009). Understanding International Relations. Hampshire and New York. Palgrave Macmillan. Burchill, Scott (2013). “Liberalism”, in Scott Burchill et al., (eds.). Theories of International Relations. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Cobden, Richard. (1903). Political Writings. vol. 2, London. Fisher Unwin. Cox, Robert. (1981). “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory”. Millennium Journal of International Studies. 10 (2): 126-155. Daddow, Oliver. (2013). International Relations Theory: The Essentials, New Delhi. Thousand Oaks and London: Sage. Doyle, Michael W. (1983). “Kant, Liberal Legacies and foreign Affairs”. Philosophy and Public Affairs. 2 (3): 205-235. Gill, Stephen and David Law. (1988). Global Political Economy: Perspectives, Problems and Policies. London: Harvester Wheatleaf. Gunter, Tamar. (2017). International Organizations in World Politics. Thousand Oaks. London. New Delhi and Singapore. Sage. Heywood, Andrew. (2011). Global Politics. Basingstoke. Palgrave Macmillan. Jackson, Robert and George Sorensen. (2008). International Relations: Theories and Approaches. New York. Oxford University Press. Kauppi, Mark V and Paul R. Viotti. (2020). International Relations Theory. London. Rowman and Littlefield. Keohane, Robert O’ and Joseph S. Nye. (2001). Power and Interdependence. New York. Longman. Lamy, Steven L. (2008). “Contemporary mainstream approaches: neorealism and neoliberalism”. in John Bayllis, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens (eds.). The Globalization of World Politics. New York. Oxford. (124-141). Rosenau, J. (1980). The Study of Global Interdependence: Essays on the Transnationalization of World Affairs. New York. Basic Books. 126 Rosenau, J. (1992), “Citizenship in Changing Global Order” in J. N Rosenau Liberalism & Neo-Liberalism and E.O Cziempiel (eds), Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. (272-294). Smith, Adam. (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and causes of The Wealth of Nations. Hampshire. Harriman House. Sutch, Peter and Juanita Elias. (2010). International Relations: The Basics. New York. Routledge. 8.8 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS EXERCISES Check Your Progress Exercise 1 1) Your answer should highlight following points: i) Private groups and societies important in IR, ii) People across societies are friendlier and support each other, iii) It can lead to formation of global societies Check Your Progress Exercise 2 1) Your answer should highlight following points: i) Differences over implications of anarchy, ii) Neorealists give importance to military, neoliberalists prefer trade, iiiNeoliberals talk of absolute gains, neorealists favour relative gains 127 Theoretical Perspectives UNIT 9 MARXIST APPROACHES* Structure 9.0 Objectives 9.1 Introduction 9.2 Basic Assumptions 9.3 Marxism and Imperialism 9.4 Neo-Marxism 9.4.1 Dependency School 9.4.2 Gramsci and Neo-Gramscianism 9.4.3 Critical Theory 9.5 Let Us Sum Up 9.6 References 9.7 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises 9.0 OBJECTIVES This unit would discuss the Marxist approaches to internat