Politics 1B
Intro to IR - Week 3
Theories - Liberalism
Dr Lisa Otto
lisao@[Link]
Introduction
Liberalism = a political philosophy that stresses the importance of individual
liberty. It holds that states can manage the consequences of anarchy while
still preserving their independence or liberty.
Introducing Liberalism
Liberalism arose in the 18th century, having inspired the American
Revolution and being embodied by the US Constitution.
It took hold more gradually in other parts of the world but has come to have
broad influence.
It captures the argument that anarchy has less of an impact on int’l politics
than realists believe. In fact, it came as a response to this idea, both at an
int’l and domestic level.
Key thinkers include: John Locke, Immanuel Kant, Robert Keohane, John
M. Owen, and Joseph S. Nye.
Liberal domestic theory focuses on the rights of individuals based on the
notion that individuals could join together to form governments that would
protect them from anarchy without resorting to authoritarianism.
The central insight is: it is possible to overcome the worst aspects of a
realist world and that anarchy can be mitigated.
Whereas realists are pessimistic about the ability to manage anarchy,
liberals are more optimistic.
Key Assumptions
That people are rational and understand their interests.
This leads domestic liberals to believe in liberal democracy as the
best form of government.
It leads international liberals to believe that rational states can
overcome the problems of anarchy.
Liberalism is a more diverse paradigm than realism, making it more
difficult to summarise, but there are three key strands of liberal theory
that departs from realism:
1) Implications of anarchy – anarchy does create a security
dilemma but the danger of this provides an incentive for states to
cooperate to find a way out. States form int’l institutions to help
manage relations and increase confidence that agreements will be
followed.
2) States as central actors – liberals see a multiplicity of actors
who have different motives for their behaviour. This perspective
cuts across levels of analysis, but focuses at the substate level.
3) States as unitary actors – liberals deny the realist assumption
that form of government does not matter and advance the
democratic peace theory instead.
Three Strands of Liberal Paradigm
Three Strands of Liberal Theory
These are compatible if different theories, liberal in their belief in
cooperation and the possibility of order.
None of these reject power politics, but they argue that the world is
contingent.
For liberals, realism falls short as it does not acknowledge that various
conditions exist in int’l politics, and some provide incentives for
cooperation.
Liberal Institutionalism
This shares many realist assumptions: anarchy, the problem of insecurity,
and the notion that states can be seen as unitary rational actors. BUT…
they come to different conclusions based on these assumptions.
Liberals argue that the security dilemma can be (partly) overcome if states
stop acquiring weapons at the same time.
They also believe that even if the security dilemma can’t be completely
avoided, states can maintain a balance of power through agreement – this
would increase security and states could thus focus more on other issues,
like increasing prosperity.
Liberal Institutionalism and the Prisoner’s
Dilemma
For liberals, the prisoner’s dilemma demonstrates that it is possible for two
states to become better off at the same time by moving toward mutual
cooperation.
This undermines the realist assumptions of a zero-sum game.
Zero-sum game = a situation in which any gains for one side are considered
losses for the other side.
Other liberal arguments about the prisoner’s dilemma:
Institutions, IOs, treaties etc can help facilitate cooperation and monitor
compliance.
Shared norms and values provide incentives to cooperate.
The benefits of cooperation will accrue over time, meaning those who
don’t cooperate will become poorer over time.
Reciprocity can encourage even selfish states to cooperate. States can
thus learn to cooperate.
Monitoring mechanisms can prevent ‘cheating’.
Realists have responses to these arguments – they see opportunities
for cooperation as limited and bargaining won’t be fair but imposed
by the strong on the weak.
Liberal Institutionalism and Anarchy
Institutions to facilitate cooperation and manage anarchy is NB – agreed
norms, values, and practices.
These can be formal (e.g. a treaty) or informal (e.g. summits).
Int’l agreements can be supported by formal organisations (UN, World
Bank, WTO, etc.).
The term ‘int’l regime’ is sometimes used to capture this range of
cooperative activity.
Institutions can play several roles:
Provide a forum for states to meet.
Gather data to provide an agreed-upon view of a problem.
A neutral body to verify states meeting their obligations.
Whereas realism focuses on coercion, liberal institutionalism focuses on
collaboration and institutional power.
Liberal Institutionalism and Cheating
‘Cheating’ arises as a problem, esp. in realist critique of LI.
Liberal institutionalists agree that cooperation is more likely when cheating
can be detected before it threatens security.
Collaboration itself can make it easier to verify that states aren’t cheating
and use institutions to verify compliance.
If anarchy breeds insecurity, then states have an incentive to overcome this
through cooperation.
Liberal Institutionalism in Practice
After the Napoleonic wars – states worked together to preserve the status
quo.
Concert of Europe – predecessor to the LoN and UN.
Brought about a period of peace but did not prevent WWI.
Cold War – intense rivals cooperate on agreements to limit nuclear
weapons.
Expansion of military and economic agreements is offered as evidence that
collaboration explains more than competition.
Complex Interdependence Theory
Three essential traits
1) Multiple channels connect societies – across levels and with a variety
of actors beyond the state.
Encompasses pluralism / the presence of many competing ideas
and actors. Thus a broader range of interests.
2) There is no clear hierarchy of issues – security, which realists see as
dominant, is not always the most important agenda item, especially for
non-state actors.
3) Military force is often not considered a viable tool of policy – in
dealing with issues that don’t have to do with security, war is
inappropriate and counterproductive.
A ‘web of relationships’ has been driven by rapid growth in globalisation in
recent years via, the spread of the internet, a reduced cost of ICT and
mobile phone technology, social media, the 4IR.
CIT’s view of cooperation overlaps with LI’s – whereas LI sees the
possibility of cooperation between those with security concerns,
CIT sees many actors focusing on issues less difficult than security.
Democratic Peace Theory
Ascribed to Immanuel Kant.
Asserts that democratic states behave differently than other types of states
and that if democracies are more peaceful then having more democracies
will lead to more peace.
Ironically, war is sometimes fought to create democracy.
Democratic pacifism = the idea that citizens are inherently peaceful because
they are the ones who would have to fight wars.
Two versions:
1) Simple model / individual democratic peace model = democracies are
more peaceful and the public is disinclined to go to war and will stop it if
allowed (i.e. through the vote).
Focuses on individual states.
BUT diversionary wars also occur in democracies.
2) Dyadic model = democracies don’t fight other democracies, they may
still go to war, but not with democracies.
Democracies find it easier to compromise with each other.
Democracies respect each other.
Democratic institutions make leaders cautious of war.
Democratic Peace Theory
Agreement exists on two major findings re evidence:
1) No statistical evidence that democracies go to war less than
autocracies.
2) There are few, if any, cases of war between democracies in history.
Critiques of DPT:
Democracy is poorly defined – the definition appears to change over
time.
The absence of war between democracies is not surprising – there were
few democracies prior to WWII, after which war between two states has
become rarer.
Pattern of peace may be explained by other factors – balance of power
rather than the nature of the state.
Democratic Peace Theory in Practice
WWI – the ‘war to end all wars’:
Entry of the US alongside diplomacy led to the end of the war, driven by
DPT.
President Wilson’s goals = national self-determination and replacing
autocracy with democracy.
Several new democracies were formed.
Post Cold-War Europe:
Promotion of democracy in post-communist states alongside integrating
them into the EU and NATO.
Russia did not democratise / has become less democratic and hasn’t
been motivated by Western aid as oil prices increased Russian wealth.
Liberalism’s Normative Position
If the problems of anarchy can be overcome through collaboration, then
leaders should attempt to achieve these benefits.
They reject the realist notion that progress in int’l politics is impossible, as
they believe cooperation will leave everyone better off and should thus be a
priority.
Although there are no guarantees of peace or progress, both are attainable
through intelligent, rational actors.
The Realist Reply to Liberalism
Realists see liberal theory as ‘idealism’.
They argue that agreements reflect the balance of power, but don’t alter it.
They say CIT fails to explain underlying dynamics that have existed for
centuries.
They are skeptical about the belief that security issues hold no special place
above other goals.
Levels of Analysis in the Liberal Paradigm
Realism v Liberalism
Liberalism is more optimistic than realism – states can overcome anarchic
systems through cooperation.
Liberal deem progress to be possible – if the problems of anarchy can be
overcome through cooperation, then liberals believe leaders should attempt
to achieve this.
Liberals reject the notion that progress in int’l politics isn’t possible – realists
see the system as unchanging and argue that efforts at cooperation are a
mistake that states will come to regret.
Realists stress continuity where liberals stress change.
