Neoliberal institutionalism defined

Neorealism's assumptions of anarchy, conflict, the struggle for survivial etc. depict an international environment where cooperation is unlikely. However, the uncertainty and fear that characterizes neorealism's anarchic environment is viewed from a different perspective by neoliberal institutionalism.

Neoliberal institutionalists assert that international institutions can reduce states' uncertainty and fear in order to encourage cooperation between them. This IR theory finds its basis in a much more optimistic and idealistic tradition but shares several key concepts with neorealism, unlike its predecessor, classical liberalism, which opposed realist assumptions more rigorously.

First, neoliberals accept that states are the major actors in international relations but suggest that international institutions and regimes can play a larger role and effect their own autonomous impact upon state behavior. Neorealists dismiss all international institutions as merely tools of powerful states.

Neoliberals also accept that states are unitary and rational actors that make their decisions based on cost/benefit calculations. However, neoliberals reject the emphasis that neorealists place on conflict. Neoliberals cite growing levels of interdependence and new inclinations towards cooperation as evidence in support of their perspective.

While neoliberals also accept the concept of anarchy as central to understanding and explaining state behavior, their definition of this concept differs from neorealists in several important ways. To neoliberals, the concept of anarchy represents the lack of a central authority that can enforce agreements. States fail to cooperate because they fear defection (cheating) by other states. Because cooperation is a practice of collective action, states that choose to cooperate face the risk of “free riding” behavior or worse by other states. In this way, opportunities for cooperation are lost when international institutions are absent to prevent free riding, and this is the primary role that international institutions play for neoliberals: to prevent cheating.

Because of their different conception of international anarchy, neoliberals are much more optimistic about the possibility for international cooperation among states. International institutions help states work together by alleviating their concerns about cheating and free riding, by increasing the transparency of state actions, by reinforcing and institutionalizing reciprocity as a norm, by increasing the cost of cheating, and by decreasing the cost of cooperating.

By adopting several key concepts from neorealist theory, neoliberal institutionalism has been able to commandeer several important premises that have served neorealists well in explaining state behavior over time. If the progress towards integration across the global economy or within the EU, for example, begins to face fundamental challenges that cannot be overcome (e.g. France's recent "non" vote on the EU constitution), then the explanatory power of neoliberal institutionalist theory may begin to suffer. However, for the time being it has found a way to blend elements from neorealism and classical liberalism to produce a fairly plausible alternative roadmap for understanding international relations as they exist today.

Structural neorealism defined

Before I describe the neoliberalist tradition of IR theory, I'd like to review a particular offshoot of neorealist theory, in part because I find it particularly interesting and important and in part because I've already written about it in a recent term paper from which I am culling most of the material below (keeping up with weekly blog postings is at least as tough as I expected!).

In the refinement of classical realism, Kenneth Waltz’s book, Theory of International Politics, introduces analogies to economic theory and begins to allow some empirical measurement and testing of realism's theoretical concepts.

Waltz puts forward "structural neorealism", wherein Morgenthau's "balance of power” is reconceptualized as the “distribution of power” in a particular system and takes on the primary role of explaining state behavior. Structural neorealism assumes the realist’s theoretical elements of anarchy and self-help, but also adds the nondifferentiation of units.

Using an economic analogy to explain this refinement, states are similar to economic firms. Just as firms behave differently in a monopoly than in a duopoly or in perfect competition during their pursuit of maximizing profit, states behave differently in a unipolar environment than in a bipolar or in a multipolar environment during their pursuit of maximizing power. In each scenario, it is the system that explains the actor’s behavior; it does not matter which states are involved, what form of government they practice, or which political party or individuals are in power.

With this neorealist IR theory, even fewer facts are needed to explain state behavior, and generalizations can be performed to an even further extent. Furthermore, empirical measurements and tests can be introduced to verify its theoretical tenants.

However, Waltz's refinements have been criticized for allowing explanations that can become circular due to a lack of standardized measurements. The introduction of quantitative measurements that define system polarity and measure power are appropriate improvements to realist IR theory, but at this point neorealist theorists are still able to define power and polarity in any way that they see fit and can reasonably justify. Worse yet, a theorist might even use results and outcomes to adjust their theoretical frameworks ex post facto; a bipolar system that produces behavior not appropriate for a theorist’s hypotheses could simply be relabeled and redefined as multipolar in order to preserve the validity of the framework.

In addition, neorealism remains bound to abstractions such as rational actor models, market theory, and a unitary approach to states that are criticized as oversimplifications of the real dynamics of foreign policy and statecraft.

Despite these criticisms, neorealism is praised for its ability to explain with great accuracy a large amount of history using very few variables. Social scientists strive for the greatest amount of explanation with the most parsimonious theory, and structural neorealism produces a theoretically plausible “stability and restraint” model that constrains state behavior in a manner akin to Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” of economic theory. As such, the realist tradition continues to be the baseline against which all new IR theories are tested.

(OK, next post I will tackle neoliberalism, I promise)

Realism defined

Before this blog can get really interesting in discussing current events in US foreign policy and the world, I think that it is first appropriate to give an overview of each of the main theories of international relations (IR). After this is completed, then one can make posts like "a neorealist perspective of the WTO" or "constructivist perspectives on democracy" that can put these theories into practice and be of more use to the reader than merely one blogger's random opinions.

The title of this blog itself comes from a theoretical concept that belongs to the IR school of thought known as "realism."

The key variable of realism is power, conceptualized as a "balance of power" in 1948 by Hans Morgenthau in his book, Politics Among Nations.

In this book, states are described as unitary rational actors competing for survival in an international environment that is characterized by anarchy and self-help. There is no rulebook, no "fair," and no higher authority that can constrain state behavior in this competition.

However, as states seek to maximize their gains and minimize their losses, a certain balance is produced because the international system is filled with states all performing this exact same cost/benefit analysis.

According to Morgenthau's conception of this "balance of power," states maintain a kind of equilibrium between each other, changing sides whenever necessary and with no enmity between past or future allies. This is a mechanistic conception that remains unrefined in Politics Among Nations – it is unclear if Morgenthau sees this as an ideal outcome or a natural one, an equilibrium or a source of disequilibrium, a foreign policy prescription or a proscription.

Realist theory can cite as supporting evidence the fact that there has never been a single nation-state that has risen to preeminent power and held this dominant position indefinitely. A hegemon is quickly balanced against and overcome through competition with other states.

Neorealism and alliance theories follow from the realist groundwork laid down by Morgenthau in 1948. The realist/neorealist IR traditions oppose the neoliberalist tradition, which will be defined and discussed in my next posting.

A face to go with the name

My preference for Macintosh became a hindrance this week as I tried to post a photo to go along with my profile.

After downloading several copies of the Hello/Picasa software and wandering through helpscreens and the on-line "forum" that serves as their customer service (a "help yourself/help each other" approach, I suppose), I've now managed to post a photo.

A posed photo, I admit, and perheps even a little (intentionally) blurry, but the Windows beast has been tamed for now.