IR 501 The Neo - Neo Debate Dr. Bezen Balamir Coşkun email@example.com Text.
Embed Size (px)
Transcript of IR 501 The Neo - Neo Debate Dr. Bezen Balamir Coşkun firstname.lastname@example.org Text.
- Slide 1
IR 501 The Neo - Neo Debate Dr. Bezen Balamir Cokun email@example.com Text Slide 2 Neo-realism & Neo- liberalism Neo-realism and neo-liberalism and the debate between them has dominated mainstream academic scholarship in international relations in the US. Realism, neo-realism and neo-liberalism have had a profound impact on US foreign policy. Neo- realists dominate the security studies and neo-liberals focus on political economy, human rights & environment. Slide 3 Neo-realism &. Neo- liberalism Neo-realism and neo-liberalism do not offer totally contrasting images of the world. Neo-realists stated that they are concerned with the issues of survival. They claim that neo-liberals are too optimistic about the possibilities for cooperation among states. Neo-liberals counter with claims that all states have mutual interests and can gain from cooperation. Slide 4 Neo-realism & Neo- liberalism Both are problem solving theories (see Cox) - neither theory propose major reform or radical transformations in the international system, they are system maintainer theories. They are progeny of realism and liberalism biased towards the state, the capitalist market and the status quo The process of globalization have forced them to consider similar issues & address new challenges to international order. Slide 5 Neo-realism & Neo- liberalism They are more than theories, they are paradigms or conceptual frameworks that define a field of study, limit our conception of reality, and define an agenda for research and policy making. There are considerable differences in how the scholarly & policy world define and use labels of neo-realism & neo-liberalism Slide 6 Neo-realism in academia & in politics For most academics neo-realism refers to Kenneth Waltzs theory of international politics (1979). Waltzs theory emphasize the importance of structure of the international system and its role as the primary determinant of state behaviour. Slide 7 Neo-realism in academia & in politics Some other scholars & and policy- makers use neo-realism to describe a recent and updated version of realism. In security studies, some scholars use the terms offensive and defensive realism when discussing neo-realism. Slide 8 Neo-liberalism in academia & in policy world In the academic world neo-liberalism generally refers to neo-liberal institutionalism. In the policy world neo-liberalism means the promotion of free trade or open markets and Western democratic values and institutions. Slide 9 Neo-realism Waltzs theory of structural realism is only one version of neo-realism the second group is the modern realists lead by Joseph Grieco - relative & absolute gains the third version is found in security studies which talk about offensive and defensive realism. Slide 10 (1) Structural realism Structural realists do not deny the importance of unit level explanations, however they believe that the effects of structure must be considered. Structure is defined by the ordering principle of the international system, which is anarchy, and the distribution of capabilities across the units, which are states (Waltz) Slide 11 Structural realism The structure of the international system shapes foreign policy choices. For neo-realists (structural realists in particular) power is more than the accumulation of military resources and the ability to use this power to coerce and control other states. Neo-realists see power as the combined capabilities of a state. Power gives a state a position in international system and shapes the state behavior. Slide 12 Structural realism Neo-realists suggest that anarchy defines the system. All states are functionally similar units, they all experience the same constraints presented by anarchy and strive to maintain their position in the system. Neo-realists explain any difference in policy by differences in power and capabilities. Slide 13 (2) Relative & absolute gains Joseph Grieco (1988) focuses on the concepts of relative and absolute gains. He claims that states are interested in increasing their power and influence (absolute gains), thus will cooperate with other actors in the system to increase their capabilities. Grieco claims that states are also concerned with how much power and influence other states might achieve (relative gains). Slide 14 Relative & absolute gains This is the key difference between neo-realism and neo-liberalism. Neo- liberals claim that cooperation does not work when states fail to follow the rules and cheat to secure their national interests. Neo-realists claim that there are two barriers to international cooperation: cheating & relative gains of other actors. Slide 15 Relative & absolute gains The likelihood of states abandoning international cooperative efforts is increased if participants see other states gaining more from the arrangement. The fundamental question asked by Grieco is not whether all parties gain from cooperation, but who will gain more if we cooperate. Slide 16 (3) Security Studies & Neo-realism Offensive neo-realists accept most of Waltzs ideas and good portion of the assumptions of traditional realism. Defensive neo-realists suggest that our assumptions of relations with other states depend on whether they are friends or enemies. Exp. When dealing with the EU the assumption of the US leaders are more akin to those promoted by neo-liberals. Slide 17 Security Studies & Neo-realism John Mearsheimer (1990, 1994) who is an offensive realist, suggests that relative power and not absolute power is most important to states. He suggests that leaders of countries should pursue security policies that weaken their potential enemies and increase their power relative to all others. Slide 18 Security Studies & Neo-realism Offensive realists were very critical of the Bushs decision to go to war in Iraq. This war was unnecessary because the containment of Iraq was working effectively and there was no compelling strategic rationale for this war. Slide 19 Security Studies & Neo-realism Defensive neo-realists like Robert Jervis & Jack Snyder claim that the cost of war clearly outweigh the benefits. Defensive neo-realists see conflict as unnecessary only in a subset of situations ie. economic relations. Slide 20 Core Assumptions of Neo-Realism States & other actors interact in an anarchic environment. There is no central authority to enforce rules and norms or protect the interests of the larger community The structure of the system is a major determinant of actor behavior States are self-interest oriented, and an anarchic and competitive system pushes them to favor self-help over cooperation Slide 21 Core Assumptions of Neo-Realism States are rational actors, selecting strategies to minimize losses The most critical problem presented by anarchy is survival States see all other states as potential enemies and threats to their national security. The distrust and fear creates a security dilemma, and this motivates the state policies. Slide 22 Neo-liberalism David Baldwin (1993) identifies 4 varieties of liberalism that influence contemporary international relations: commercial, republican, sociological and liberal institutionalism Slide 23 Neo-liberalism Commercial liberalism advocates free trade and market or capitalist economy Republican Liberalism states that democratic states are more inclined to respect the rights of their citizens and less likely to go war with other democratic states. Slide 24 Neo-liberalism Sociological liberalism focuses on the notion of community & the process of interdependence. Slide 25 Neo-liberalism Liberal institutionalism or neo-liberal institutionalism is considered as the most convincing challenge to Realist and neo-realist thinking. The roots of this version of liberalism found in 1940s - 1950s functional integration models. The 2nd generation of liberal institutionalists emerged in 1960s to explain the EU integration Slide 26 Neo-liberalism The 3rd generation of liberal institutional scholarship was the transnationalism and the complex interdependence of 1970s (Keohane & Nye 1972, 1977). They argued that the world had become more pluralistic in terms of actors involved in international interactions and they become more dependent on each other. Slide 27 Neo-liberalism Complex interdependence has 4 characteristics: (1) increasing linkages among states & non-state actors (2) a new agenda of international issues with no distinction between low and high politics (3) a recognition of multiple channels for interaction among actors (4) the decline of the efficacy of military force as a tool of statecraft Slide 28 Neo-liberalism Complex interdependence scholars suggest that globalization represents an increase in linkages and channels for interaction and interconnections. Slide 29 Neo-liberalism Neo-liberal institutionalists see institutions as mediator and the means to achieve cooperation among actors in the system. Their current research focus on the issues of global governance Slide 30 Neo-liberalism For neo-liberal institutionalists the focus on mutual interests extend beyond trade & development Successful responses to security threats require the creation of regional and global regimes that promote cooperation and coordination Slide 31 Neo-liberalism Neo-liberals support cooperative multilateralism and critical of unilateral and preemptive use of force as the US did in 2002 against Iraq. Neo-liberals argue that the US- led war with Iraq did more to undermine the legitimacy of global and regional institutions. Slide 32 Core assumptions of neo-liberalism states are key actors, but not the only significant actors. States are rational or instrumental actors, always seeking to maximize their interests In this competitive environment states seek to maximize absolute gains through cooperation. Rational behavior l