POSC 2200 – Theoretical POSC 2200 – Theoretical ApproachesApproaches

Russell Alan WilliamsRussell Alan Williams

Department of Political ScienceDepartment of Political Science

Unit Two: Unit Two: Theoretical ApproachesTheoretical Approaches Required Reading:Required Reading:

Globalization of World PoliticsGlobalization of World Politics, Chapters 5, 6 and 7., Chapters 5, 6 and 7. Realism: Mearsheimer, Realism: Mearsheimer, Anarchy and the Struggle for PowerAnarchy and the Struggle for Power, (Excerpt , (Excerpt

available from the instructor.)available from the instructor.) Liberalism: Michael Doyle, Liberalism: Michael Doyle, ““Liberalism and World PoliticsLiberalism and World Politics””, , American American

Political Science ReviewPolitical Science Review, 80 (4), pp. 1151-69. (Excerpt available from the , 80 (4), pp. 1151-69. (Excerpt available from the instructor).instructor).

““RealismRealism””

Outline:Outline: Introduction to RealismIntroduction to Realism Key AssumptionsKey Assumptions The Evolution of RealismThe Evolution of Realism

Classical RealismClassical Realism NeorealismNeorealism Neoclassical realismNeoclassical realism

ConclusionsConclusions For Next TimeFor Next Time

1) Introduction to Realism:1) Introduction to Realism:IR IR ““RealismRealism”” is a modern theory . . . . Founding debate – is a modern theory . . . . Founding debate – the interwar years (1919-1939) = Two the interwar years (1919-1939) = Two ““campscamps””::

““IdealismIdealism””: : Approach that emphasized international law, morality and Approach that emphasized international law, morality and organizations, rather than powerorganizations, rather than power

E.g. Hope that E.g. Hope that League of NationsLeague of Nations could prevent future wars could prevent future wars

““RealismRealism””: : Approach that explained IR mainly in terms of statesApproach that explained IR mainly in terms of states ’’ pursuit pursuit of powerof power

E.g. States must seek to maximize power or face destruction = WWI E.g. States must seek to maximize power or face destruction = WWI was was notnot ““war to end all warswar to end all wars””

E. H. Carr (1939) coined terms - Argued that WWII proved that E. H. Carr (1939) coined terms - Argued that WWII proved that ““realismrealism”” was the correct theory was the correct theory

Dominant theory until 1990s – Dominant theory until 1990s – particularly in USparticularly in US

However . . . Realism has However . . . Realism has ““historical antecedentshistorical antecedents””:: Classical sources that warned against Classical sources that warned against ““idealismidealism”” – still – still

cited to this day . . . .cited to this day . . . . Thucydides (?)Thucydides (?) Machiavelli (?) Machiavelli (?) Hobbes (?)Hobbes (?)

Collective insight? – Collective insight? – See Mearsheimer for exampleSee Mearsheimer for example:: World is dangerous and violent placeWorld is dangerous and violent place ““Wise” states pursue own power and securityWise” states pursue own power and security Morality and trust of allies can be foolishMorality and trust of allies can be foolish

Three major types of Three major types of ““RealismRealism””:: ““Classical RealismClassical Realism”” – based on danger posed by other – based on danger posed by other

humanshumans ““NeorealismNeorealism”” – based on the structure of international – based on the structure of international

system = system = ““Structural realismStructural realism”” ““Neoclassical RealismNeoclassical Realism”” – Combines insights from – Combines insights from

Classical and Neorealism.Classical and Neorealism.

2) Key Assumptions of Realism2) Key Assumptions of Realisma) Humans are potentiallya) Humans are potentially ““badbad”” . . . . . .

Inherently selfish and power seekingInherently selfish and power seeking E.g. Debate between E.g. Debate between ““Classical RealismClassical Realism”” and and

““IdealismIdealism”” about human nature about human nature

Thomas Hobbes (1642)Thomas Hobbes (1642) Only Only Leviathan, Leviathan, or strong sovereign government, or strong sovereign government,

keeps us from killing one anotherkeeps us from killing one another

=There is no “Leviathan” in international politics under =There is no “Leviathan” in international politics under normal circumstances . . . .normal circumstances . . . .

““AnarchyAnarchy””: A political system that has no central : A political system that has no central authority – does not equal chaos, but does not have authority – does not equal chaos, but does not have enforceable rules separate from power . . . .enforceable rules separate from power . . . .

2) Key Assumptions of Realism2) Key Assumptions of Realismb) b) ““StatismStatism””: Realism emphasizes the role of states : Realism emphasizes the role of states

as the legitimate, rational, and constitutive actors as the legitimate, rational, and constitutive actors of international politics.of international politics.

Key concerns of the state: Key concerns of the state: ““SurvivalSurvival”” . . . . . . . .

Classical realist scholars argue that leaders’ first and Classical realist scholars argue that leaders’ first and only priority is to ensure the durability of the state (E.g. only priority is to ensure the durability of the state (E.g. Machiavelli)Machiavelli)

““Self HelpSelf Help””: Under : Under ““anarchyanarchy”” states can only trust in their states can only trust in their own abilities to ensure survivalown abilities to ensure survival

2) Key Assumptions of Realism2) Key Assumptions of Realismc) c) ““PowerPower””: the ability to get others to do what you : the ability to get others to do what you

want them to do . . . .want them to do . . . . For realists power comes before politics and influence For realists power comes before politics and influence

and can be understood in material termsand can be understood in material terms= Military, economic and strategic = Military, economic and strategic ““capabilitiescapabilities””

Modern realists emphasize the Modern realists emphasize the ““Balance of PowerBalance of Power”” above all elseabove all else

3) The Evolution of Realism:3) The Evolution of Realism:a) “a) “Classical RealismClassical Realism”: Carr and others drew on ”: Carr and others drew on

inspiration from classical sources . . .inspiration from classical sources . . .

States should be protective of the States should be protective of the ““national interestnational interest””

Leaders should prioritize Leaders should prioritize ““raison draison d’’etat/reasons of stateetat/reasons of state”” E.g. Machiavelli's Prince must be ready to do what is E.g. Machiavelli's Prince must be ready to do what is

necessary, not what is necessary, not what is ““goodgood””..

Deep suspicion of trust in rules and other sovereign Deep suspicion of trust in rules and other sovereign authorities . . . as they also (if they are wise) will pursue authorities . . . as they also (if they are wise) will pursue ““raison draison d’’etatetat”” in their strategies. in their strategies.

3) The Evolution of Realism:3) The Evolution of Realism:a) Classical Realism was largely replaced by a) Classical Realism was largely replaced by ““NeorealismNeorealism””

after the 1970safter the 1970s Desire for more science and clearer variables - arguments about threats Desire for more science and clearer variables - arguments about threats

inherent in human nature and rogue states give way to a more inherent in human nature and rogue states give way to a more ““structuralstructural”” theory (Kenneth Waltz)theory (Kenneth Waltz)

““NeorealismNeorealism””:: Used ideas from behavioral science to understand Used ideas from behavioral science to understand state behavior, given the structure of the international system.state behavior, given the structure of the international system.

Two variables:Two variables:

1) 1) ““AnarchyAnarchy””

2) 2) Distribution of power (military and economic abilities)Distribution of power (military and economic abilities)

Note: Internal characteristics of states (Democracy versus non-Note: Internal characteristics of states (Democracy versus non-democracies etc.) are democracies etc.) are NOTNOT important, as all states seek the survival important, as all states seek the survival under under ““anarchyanarchy””

3) The Evolution of Realism:3) The Evolution of Realism:““NeorealismNeorealism”” directed focus to: directed focus to:

““Relative GainsRelative Gains””: International politics is a : International politics is a ““zero-sum gamezero-sum game””, in , in which states must be concerned about how much other states gain which states must be concerned about how much other states gain in relation to them = one state’s gain necessarily means another in relation to them = one state’s gain necessarily means another state has lost . . . .state has lost . . . .

““Security DilemmaSecurity Dilemma””: As states acquire capabilities to make : As states acquire capabilities to make themselves secure, they make others more insecure – leads to a themselves secure, they make others more insecure – leads to a cycle of arms races and growing insecurity.cycle of arms races and growing insecurity.

Implications? >> Implications? >> Possibility of cooperation is very limited, Possibility of cooperation is very limited, because of rational self interest and fear of "because of rational self interest and fear of "Relative GainsRelative Gains""

Neorealism: Relative Gains, Neorealism: Relative Gains, ““PrisonersPrisoners’’ DilemmaDilemma”” and Nuclear Proliferation and Nuclear Proliferation

India vs. Pakistan - India vs. Pakistan - Both would be better off by Both would be better off by notnot developing developing ““nukesnukes”” = cooperation = cooperation

However, each state However, each state most fears cooperating most fears cooperating (not developing nukes) (not developing nukes) while other while other ““defectsdefects”” and does!!!and does!!!

= = hugehuge relative gainsrelative gains problem!!!problem!!!

Pakistan

Cooperate

(No nukes) Defect

(Get Nukes)

Cooperate (No Nukes)

C,C

C,D

India Defect

(Get Nukes)

D,C

D,D

•India preference = DC>CC>DD>CD•Pakistan preference = CD>CC>DD>DC•If both states are rational, fear of cheating and “relative

gains” leads to equilibrium at (D,D)

Key Point: Rational self interest makes cooperation difficult

3) The Evolution of Realism:3) The Evolution of Realism:““NeorealismNeorealism”” also led to debate between also led to debate between ““offensive offensive realismrealism”” and and ““defensive realismdefensive realism””..

Both see states as necessarily focused on maximizing their Both see states as necessarily focused on maximizing their security, but have different theories about the impact of security, but have different theories about the impact of capabilities . . . .capabilities . . . .

Offensive vs. Defensive RealismOffensive vs. Defensive RealismJohn Mearsheimer – John Mearsheimer – ““Offensive RealismOffensive Realism””

Assumptions:Assumptions: All states possess All states possess somesome military capability military capability All states concerned about survivalAll states concerned about survival All states uncertain of otherAll states uncertain of other ’’s intentionss intentions

Friends today can be enemies tomorrow . . . .Friends today can be enemies tomorrow . . . .

Result: Result: Great powers should think and act aggressivelyGreat powers should think and act aggressively

whenever they canwhenever they can Maximize power & exploit otherMaximize power & exploit other’’s weaknesss weakness

E.g. Athens and MelosE.g. Athens and Melos

= = Culture of fear!Culture of fear!

Offensive vs. Defensive RealismOffensive vs. Defensive Realism

Robert Jervis – Robert Jervis – ““Defensive RealismDefensive Realism””

Assumption:Assumption: If military capabilities favor defense then the If military capabilities favor defense then the

capabilities of others are less threateningcapabilities of others are less threatening E.g. Weaker states can defend themselves against E.g. Weaker states can defend themselves against

stronger if there is an attackstronger if there is an attack

Result: Result: States do not need to be so quick to maximize power States do not need to be so quick to maximize power

to surviveto survive E.g. post World War I FranceE.g. post World War I France

Problems?Problems?

3) The Evolution of Realism:3) The Evolution of Realism:““Neoclassical realismNeoclassical realism””: : Combines the structural ideas of Combines the structural ideas of ““neorealism”” with more classical ideas bout the nature with more classical ideas bout the nature of individual states.of individual states.

““NeorealismNeorealism””: : Suggested states were the same, and all were Suggested states were the same, and all were threateningthreatening

““Neoclassical realismNeoclassical realism””: Suggests some states are less : Suggests some states are less threatening regardless of their threatening regardless of their ““capabilitiescapabilities”” as they are as they are satisfied with the satisfied with the status quostatus quo..

3) The Evolution of Realism:3) The Evolution of Realism:

Key pointKey point: : Realism needed to move beyond just thinking Realism needed to move beyond just thinking about military capabilities and think about the goals of about military capabilities and think about the goals of individual societies and states.individual societies and states.

““RevisionistRevisionist”” states are the ones that should be feared . . . . states are the ones that should be feared . . . .

4) Conclusions - Realism4) Conclusions - Realism

View of individual:View of individual: Power seeking, selfish and antagonisticPower seeking, selfish and antagonistic

View of state:View of state: Unitary, rational and power seekingUnitary, rational and power seeking

View of international system:View of international system: Anarchic, conflict constant (only inhibited by Anarchic, conflict constant (only inhibited by ““balance of powerbalance of power”” – E.g. conflict less likely under – E.g. conflict less likely under ““HegemonyHegemony”” or or ““unipolarityunipolarity””

““NeorealismNeorealism”” has tended to play down individual and has tended to play down individual and domestic politics explanations of state behaviordomestic politics explanations of state behavior

4) Conclusions - Realism:4) Conclusions - Realism:

Strengths:Strengths: Clearly stated & small number of variables =Clearly stated & small number of variables = clear predictions clear predictions Reflects much of what we observe (?)Reflects much of what we observe (?)

Problems:Problems: Most realists are Most realists are ““offensiveoffensive”” - should equal more war? - should equal more war? There seem to be many rules and morals in international politicsThere seem to be many rules and morals in international politics

Hard to explain some behavior from realist perspective:Hard to explain some behavior from realist perspective: Decolonization?Decolonization? USSR "gave up" the cold war?USSR "gave up" the cold war?

Unclear role for economics – Realism has hard time explaining Unclear role for economics – Realism has hard time explaining economic cooperation and economic cooperation and ““globalizationglobalization”” = GREAT DEAL OF = GREAT DEAL OF COOPERATIONCOOPERATION

7) For Next Time . . .7) For Next Time . . .

Unit Two: Unit Two: Theoretical ApproachesTheoretical Approaches

““Liberalism: Idealism – InstitutionalismLiberalism: Idealism – Institutionalism””Required Reading:Required Reading:

Globalization of World PoliticsGlobalization of World Politics, Chapters 5, 6 and 7., Chapters 5, 6 and 7. Liberalism: Michael Doyle, Liberalism: Michael Doyle, ““Liberalism and World PoliticsLiberalism and World Politics””, ,

American Political Science ReviewAmerican Political Science Review, 80 (4), pp. 1151-69. , 80 (4), pp. 1151-69. (Excerpt (Excerpt available from the instructor).available from the instructor).