Walt- “International Relations: One World, Many Theories”
-A wide variety of theories is preferable to a single model because of the complexity of
world politics
* No single approach can capture the complexity of contemporary world politics.
-Realism:
* dominant theoretical tradition  Cold War
* struggle for power among self-interested states
*neorealism focuses on the effects of the international system and not human
nature
* when defense is easier than offense, security is more plentiful and incentives to
expand decline and cooperation becomes easier
-Liberalism:
* challenge to realism
* believes that economic interdependence will discourage states from using forces
against each other
- anarchy forces states to worry about both the absolute gains from cooperation and the
way that gains are distributed among participants
- great power wars occurred largely because domestic groups fostered exaggerated
perceptions of threat and an excessive faith in the efficacy of military force
- democratic peace theory democracies are inherently more peaceful than autocratic
states
-globalization of world markets undermines the power of states and shifts attention away
from military security toward economics and social welfare
- Constructivist:
*emphasizes the impact of ideas
* state interests and identities are highly malleable and effect the behavior of
states
Oye- “The Conditions for Cooperation in World Politics”
-Payoff Structure and Cooperation:
*for a mutual benefit to exist, actors must prefer mutual cooperation to mutual
defection
*Prisoner’s Dilemma will drive players toward mutual defection if
communication is not allowed
* Stag Hunt encourages cooperation and discourages defection because of mutual
interest in eating
- Strategies to Alter Payoff Structure:
*publicizing an agreement diminishes payoffs associated with defection from the
agreement and thereby lessens gains from exploitation
*specialized economies are hostage to international economic cooperation, which
would increase a nation’s commitment to liberalism
-Shadow of the Future:
*states confronted with strategic situations that resemble single-play instances are
constantly tempted by immediate gains from unilateral defection and are also
fearful of immediate losses from unrequited cooperation
*states must (1) expect to continue dealing w/one another, (2) payoff structures
must not change substantially over time, (3) place a high value on future payoffs
in order to continue cooperating
*in the absence of continuing interaction, defection would emerge as the
dominant strategy
-defection can be deterred by threats of retaliation on other iterated
(repeated) issues
*strategies of reciprocity have the effect of promoting cooperation by establishing
a direct connection between an actor’s present behavior and anticipated future
benefits
* prospects for cooperation diminish as the # of players increases because the
likelihood of autonomous defection and of recognition increases
- feasibility of sanctioning defectors diminishes can cannot be
implemented without triggering a collapse of cooperation  possibility of
free-riding
*Cooperation requires recognition of opportunities for the advancement of mutual
interests
Doyle- “Kant, Liberal Legacies and Foreign Affairs”
-Liberalism is a distinct ideology and set of institutions that has shaped the perception of
and capacities for foreign relations of political societies
*focuses on the importance of moral freedom, the right to be treated and a duty to
treat others as ethical subjects and not as objects or means only
*calls for the freedom from arbitrary authority, states have the right to be free
from foreign intervention
- Liberal states have a predisposition against warfare between ideologically similar states
-Hobbesinternational anarchy accounts for competition and fear (Security Dilema)
-Three types of interstate peace: empire, hegemony and equilibrium
*empire create internal peace
*hegemony creates peace by over-awing potential rivals
-democratic states considered more peaceful b/c citizen rule prevents wars (they have to
bear the cost of the war)
*see more harm than good in war, it hurts the peoples’ general welfare and
disrupts economy/trade
*also, leaders are not permanent, so grudges cannot be used as a stimulus to war
Keohane- “International Institutions: Can Interdependence Work?”
-only become important after founding of UN in 1945
-Institutions provide structures of rules and norms and create capability for mutually
beneficial cooperation
*reduce uncertainty between states
*powerful form of global regulation
-Realists believe that institutions are insignificant b/c extension of state power
*believe that states will resist cooperation because the gains might threaten their
power
- Institutions whose members share social values and have similar political systems are
likely to be stronger than those whose more diverse membership does not necessarily
have the same kind of deep common interests
- Institutions dominated by a small # members can take more decisive action
-technological advances would help form communicative networks between individuals
and NGOs
- Accountability will be enhanced through transparency
Wendt- “Anarchy is What States Make of It”
-anarchy is the condition or possibility for war
Finnemore- “National Interests in International Society”
-states are assumed to want power, wealth and security
*power and wealth are means, not ends
-state interests are a result of international norms
-IOs socialize states to accept now goals and values states are continually evolving
-many assume that preferences come from within the state
*both neoliberals and neorealists believe that interactions between states are due
to a desire to pursue pre-specified preferences
-state preferences are malleable
- the impetus for action comes from w/in the state, while the solution is found outside
-international institutions are understood as creations of states and servants to their
interests
Friedberg- “The Future of US-China Relations”
-both China and the United States are regional hegemonies
-
*have an informal alliance and understanding
-liberal optimists believe that economic interdependence, international institutions and
democratization will help stabilize relationship & develop peace
*trade creates shared interest in good relations btw. both states
* strong interest in avoiding conflict
-
*improved communication will reduce uncertainty and help govts cooperate
*democratic peace theory
~rising middle class in China reluctance to go to war
-Realist pessimists believe that peace is fleeting due to international system of anarchy
*China’s vigorous economy allows it to expand its military capabilities
* rising powers often are expansionist and threatening
~more apt to challenge status quo
-Realist optimists focus on the material distribution of power as a source of stability
*believe that China’s power is not as great as it may seem & that economic
expansion will be disrupted by domestic social and political turbulence
*distinguish intentions from capabilities
*China appears to be a revisionist, not a revolutionary, power
*bipolar stability, nuclear deterrence and separate spheres of influence
-Liberal pessimists look at the internal structures and political dynamics w/in both
countries
*China’s govt relies heavily of military for legitimacy and preservation of
domestic order
~nationalistic too
~unstable b/c transitioning from authortarian/communistdemocratic
*hostile to liberal perception of themselves, specifically abt. human rights issues
-Constructivist optimists believe that identities and norms are flexible and changing due
to institutional contact and communication
-Constructivist pessimists believe that identities are hardening due to culture shock btw
both nations
Waltz- “The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory”
-before WWII, multipolar stability; after WWII, bipolar stability
-neorealists sees power as a means, but the ultimate concern of states is for security
- neorealism contends that international politics can only be understood if the effects of
structure are added to the explanation
* dynamics of a system limit the freedom of its units, therefore making the actions
of the states w/in it predictable
*structure is the cause of international hostilities
- states must be suspicious of others and even hostile to ensure their security
-powers in a bipolar world respond quickly to threats and dangers are clear, while in a
multipolar world dangers are diffused and responsibilities are unclear
*w/ several states, unity of action is difficult to achieve
- separation of interests in bipolar world (like that of the Cold War) reduce the occasions
for dispute and allows for independence
- War becomes less likely as the costs of war rise in relations to the possible gains, such
is the case in the nuclear age
*nuclear deterrence, first strike v. second strike capabilities
Levy- “Domestic Politics and War”
- impact of economic structure, nationalism/ public opinion and scapegoat hypothesis
- certain political cultures and ideologies are more warlike than others
- democratic peace theory
* leaders of non-democratic countries are more apt to go to war for trivial reasons
b/c they do not bear the repercussions or war and are not constrained by electoral
accountability
* democratic countries go to war in the interest of moral crusades, accepting
nothing less than complete victory
~public opinion prevents leaders from making alliances w/ ideologically
different/hostile states
-liberal democratic regimes may make war more likely b/c undermine deterrence (do not
use threats to stop belligerent countries)
- There have been no significant differences btw democratic and non-democratic states in
frequency or involvement in war
-Marxism argues that capitalist economies overproduce and become stagnant
expansionist and imperialist policies abroad & competition for resources
-free trade theory promotes economic efficiency an prosperity, thus promoting peace
*war and imperialism waste resources
* issues about trade are resolved through market forces and not through
governments, alleviates international stress
-sometimes decision-makers embark on aggressive foreign policies as a means of
increasing domestic support
*scapegoat theory
~used to divert attention from domestic issues
~conflict with an out-group increases cohesion w/in in-group
-impact of external war on internal cohesion depends on
preexisting levels of unity
-internal politics have the greatest impact on foreign policy
Jervis- “War and Misperception”
Jervis- “Offense, Defense and the Security Dilemma”
- Increase in one’s security decreases the security of another
*depends on whether defensive weapons can be distinguished from offensive &
which side (defense/offense) have the advantage
- security dilemma is most intense when security is seen as attainable only through
expansion
- when O>D, easier to destroy than to defend, D>O makes it easier to keep territory
*if D>O and states are equal in size, SD stops inhibiting cooperation
-Attack v. Defense
* D>Ostability
-fears of attach do not preempt action, wars are drawn out and costly
* O>Dsurprise attacks
- 1. War is more profitable for the winner
- 2. War expected to be frequent, short, violent and reactive
- 3. Recruit (semi-permanent) allies in advance, increases tension
- 4. Statesmen are reactionary and quick to jump to conclusions
- WWI D>O b/c trench warfare & machine guns
*interwar period was conservative and cautious
-technology and geography determine if D or O have advantage
*geography favors defense (buffer zones)
* technology, when vulnerable, creates instability
Offensive posture NOT
distinct from defensive
Offensive posture
DISTINCT from defensive
Offense has the advantage
(1) Doubly dangerous!!
(3) No SD, but aggression
possible
-status-quo can follow diff.
policy from aggressor
-warning given
Defense has the advantage
(2) SD, but security
requirements may be
compatible
(4) Double stable
Gladdis- “The Long Peace: Elements of Stability in the Postwar
International System”
-post WWII system of IR based on artificial spheres of influence and acrimonious
antagonisms
*40 yr period seen the greatest accumulation of armaments the world has ever
seen
-international system exists when
* 1. Interconnections exist between units
* 2. Collective behavior of system differs from expectations and priorities of
individual units
-self-regulation = ability to counteract stimuli that would otherwise threaten a state’s
survival
*mechanisms function when there is agreement among major states w/in system
about objectives
-stability= no dominant state, members continue to survive and large-scale war does not
occur
*Structural Elements of Stability
-1. Bipolarity- high stakes for two major actors induces caution and
restraint and discourages irresponsibility
~alliances are more stable and defections are tolerated w/out major
disruptions
-2. Independence, not interdependence
~argues against liberal theory by stating that the fiercest civil wars
and bloodiest international ones are fought w/in areas populated by
similar people whose affairs are closely knit
-(Familiarity breeds contempt…)
~geographical isolation & economic dependence stability
-3. Domestic influences
~such as capitalism and how that affected US foreign policy
*Behavioral Elements of Stability
-1. Nuclear Weapons
-2. Reconnaissance Revolution
~allows nations to more accurately predict the intentions and
capabilities of other nations
-3. Ideological Moderation
-4. Rules of the Superpower Game
~respect spheres of influence
~avoid direct military confrontation
~use nuclear weapons as an ultimate last resort
Risse- “Ideas Do Not Float Freely”
Gilpin- “The Nature of the Political Economy”
-highly interdependent world economy diminishes the traditional significance of national
boundaries
-conflict comes from ethnocentric nationalism and geocentric technology
-relationship between economics and politics is reciprocal
*politics determines the framework of economic activity
*economic process redistributes power and wealth
-wealth= anything that can generate future income. Composed of physical assets and
human capital
-power cannot be quantified
*relative to the specific situation or circumstance
*force is the ultimate form of power
- Liberalism politics and economics are separable and autonomous
*economics is a positive sum game ( all parties can gain [even though
distributions may not be equal])
*goal is efficient use of resources and maximization of global welfare
*world economy is interdependent
-Marxism critique of capitalism where economics determines politics and political
structure
*distribution of wealth among classes
*basic actors are economic classes
~dominant class determines foreign policy
-Mercantilismsubservience of economy to the state and it’s interests
*distribution of employment, industry and military power
*actors are nation states
~national interest determines foreign policy
-M & M believe that economic relations is a zero-sum game & that interdependent world
economies are imperial/hierarchical
-distribution of power and nature of political system determine how wealth is distrib.
Nature of economic
relations
Nature of actors
Goal of economic
activity
Relationship btw
economics &
politics
Theory of change
Liberalism
Harmonious
Marxism
Conflictual
Mercantilism
Conflictual
Households and
firms
Max. of global
welfare
Economics should
determine politics
Economic classes
Nation states
Max. of class
interests
Economics does
determine politics
Max. of national
interest
Politics determines
economics
Dynamic
equilibrium
Tendency towards
equilibrium
Shifts in the
distribution of
power
Hiscox- “The Domestic Sources of Foreign Economic Policies”
-nations must protect their interests in other countries
-capital takes the form of financial transactions btw citizens of different countries that
transfer ownership rights over assets
- longer- term capital comes in the form of ‘direct foreign investment’
-fear that economic leverage enjoyed by large corporations in developing countries
undermine national policies that improve environmental standards and human rights
*behavior of foreign corporations can have profound effects on local economies
and politics of developing countries
-pre-WWI governments fixed the value of currency in terms of goldrate of
international exchange was held constant
-post-WWII fixed to the value of the US dollar, whose value was tied to gold by $35/oz
*Bretton Woods: created IMF and WB, institutions which manage international
finance
* in 1973 Nixon abandoned fixed rate btw dollar and goldfree fluctuation of
international currencies
-when a govt fixes the value of national currency it sets the official rate of exchange and
commits to buy the currency at that fixed rate
-stable exchange rate increase of economic benefits through trade and investment BUT
gives up ability to adjust monetary policy to suit domestic conditions…
*advanced economies chose monetary policy over stable exchange rates
* smaller governments favor exchange-rate stability over policy control
-extensions of franchise to urban classes produces more open policies toward trade,
immigration and investment in labor and capital-abundant countries
-in parliamentary governments/US Senate (where seats are based along politicalgeographic lines, not on population) smaller issues have more influence [interest groups]
than they would in situations where legislative positions are based on # votes in districts
Scott- “The Great Divide in the Global Village”
-globalization provides an opportunity to raise incomes through increased specialization
and trade
-free trade increases the size of the market and pressure to improve economic
performance
*theorized that poor countries should grow faster than rich ones in a free global
market
~believed that eventually rich and poor areas would eventually converge
- rich countries account for 60% global GDP, but only 15% of the population
*immigration laws have prevented poor countries from catching up (result of
protectionism)
~argued that immigration barriers need not be a handicap to poor nations
b/c they can be offset by capital flows from industrialized economies to
developing ones (rich will send their capital to help develop poor
countries…)
-rich countries insist on open markets where they have an advantage and barriers in
agriculture and immigration where they would be at a disadvantage
* traditional advantages of poor countries have been in primary commodities (ex.
agriculture), but these categories have shrunk
~opportunities for growth in the world market have shifted from raw or
semi processed commodities towards manufactured goods and services,
specifically those in knowledge-intensive segments
-also argued that the legacy of colonial systems have damaged the economies of poor
countries b/c economies are structured to produce goods that are not local or that benefit
richer countries
-immigration barriers in rich countries support repressive governments who deny their
citizens the right to vote
-in theory, developing nations should create and modernize their institutions so that their
markets and firms can gradually match the performance of rich countries…but that is not
true in actuality
*modernization causes conflicts that must be resolved through politics as well as
economics