Comparison Table - Neorealism, Neoliberalism, Constructivism PDF

Preview

Summary

INSTITUTIONALISM CONSTRUCTIVISM Anarchy (No international security mechanism) For the realist, anarchy signifies that there is no supranational authority that is able to provide security Disclaimer: International anarchy in this sense does not necessarily imply disorder or conflict. Rather, it is a ...

Description

NEO-REALISM

NEO-LIBERAL INSTITUTIONALISM

CONSTRUCTIVISM

Anarchy (No international security mechanism) * For the realist, anarchy signifies that there is no supranational authority that is able to provide security * Disclaimer: International anarchy in this sense does not necessarily imply disorder or conflict. * Rather, it is a framework for interpreting other “players” actions. * Differs from anarchy advocated in counterplans and kritiks. Anarchist philosophy seeks to end state coercion while realists are distinctly statist.

Anarchy (No international mechanism to enforce agreements) * For the liberalist, anarchy signifies that there is no supranational authority that is able to enforce agreements. * While liberalism and realism share the assumption of international anarchy, neoliberals criticize realists for underestimating opportunities for cooperation within that system. * Question becomes how to create an international system that encourages cooperation.

Socially Contingent/Socially Constructed * Unlike realism and liberalism, whose causal epistemology draws from positivist (scientific) and structuralist (empirical) traditions, constructivism is post-positivist, deconstructing the ontological assumptions of other IR theories. * “Anarchy is what states make of it…” –Alexander Wendt

States * Because of anarchy at the international level, states revert to “state of nature” and act in their own selfinterest (think Machiavelli, Hobbes). * Neo-realists (also called Structural Realists) examine how non-state structures influence decisions, but still place states at the center.

Plural (States, Corporations, International Organizations, NGOs) *States cooperate with non-state entities when in their personal interest. * Because there is no international enforcement mechanism to ensure states follow through on agreements, cheating becomes the central concern. * Leads to desire to create “sticky” institutions that hold states to cooperative agreements.

Shared Ideas * Theory developed as a possible explanation for the failure of dominant theories to predict major international events (e.g. fall of the Soviet Union) * Identities and Interests are constructed by cultural norms and shared philosophies. * While the primary function of constructivism is as a critique of leading IR theories, does it advocate anything (for the purposes of policy debate)?

KEY INTEREST(S)

Survival (Classical Realism) Security (Neo-Realism) * Because there is no guarantor of security at the international level, states pursue survival. * Classical Realists viewed states as inherently aggressive, checked only by other powers * Neo-realists argue that states are merely interested in existence (post-WWII security dilemma furthers this). * Relative gains problems create zero-sum international order where states might forego perceived gains if other states make greater gains. This discourages cooperation.

Preferences (individual utility to the state) * Unlike realism, where states worry about relative gains and would forego cooperation under certain situations, institutionalists seek absolute gains. * Argue that even in situations where partners make relatively greater gains, cooperation on common interests creates “sticky” alliances. * Game Theory describes methods states use to determine when cooperation is in their best interests (prisoner’s dilemma is most common).

Define Core Ideas/ Cooperate on Shared Interests * This element of constructivism has been criticized for being no more than a post-positivist variant of neoliberalism due to its agreement that social agency shapes state preferences. * Not being truly post-modern due to its rational discourse about how ideas can address and solve “external” problems.

DEBATE APPLICATIONS

Hegemony, Balance of Power, Balance of Threat, Security Construction

Alliances, Non-State/Supranational Organizations, Preference Problem

NATURE OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM

KEY ACTOR(S)

Security Kritik/Threat Construction

Realism

Liberalism

Constructivism

People are aggressive.

People are acquisitive.

People are shaped by their culture.

History

Economics

Sociology

Human Nature Supporting Research

The anarchic structure of the The anarchic structure of the international system dictates international system constrains state behavior. state behavior. Structure

Domestic politics are unimportant. States are rational, unitary actors.

Domestic politics determine Domestic politics are integrated state attributes such as with global politics. preferences and credibility. The behavior of domestic actors is funnelled through state hierarchy into a unitary, though not always collectively rational, policy.

Non-state actors are unimportant.

States are the most important actors, but international organizations also matter.

States are the most important actors, but international organizations and nongovernmental organizations also matter.

Norms are dangerous or unimportant.

Norms are efficient habits.

Norms are part of actors’ identities that shape which actions are desirable or even possible.

* How can states best defend themselves? * What kinds of international systems are most stable?

*How can states provide global public goods? *How can states maximize their overall utility?

* How do actors self-identify, and what action is produced by that identity? * How do identities and value systems change?

Domestic Politics

Non-state Actors

Norms

Key Questions

The anarchic structure of the international system was created and is perpetuated by the very states it constitutes

No fundamental change is possible. Systemic Change

International relations can be incrementally improved. Gradual reform is possible.

The international system has been radically transformed before, and it could happen again (for good or for ill).

Actor

Realism

Nation State

English School or Rationalism

Milieu (the characteristic outlook, quality, and structure of the environment in which international actors act)

Structural Principle

World of states as anarchic state of nature

Vertical segmentation, unlimited zero-sum game for power, influence, resources

World of states as legally constituted society

Vertical Segmentation, zero-sum game regulated by norm and agreement

Idealism

Individual

World society as society of individuals and their associations

Universalistic constitution

Interdependencyoriented Globalism

Individual or societal actors

Transnational society

Functional border-crossing networks

Theories of Imperialism

Individual or societal actors representing class interests

International class society

Border-crossing horizontal layering

Dependency oriented Societal and national Globalism: actors representing Dependency Theories class interests and Theories of the Capitalist world system

World system of Capitalism as 1)Horizontal layering of layering of metropoles and national actors in the world peripheries system; 2)Structural dependence of peripheries on metropoles; 3)Structural heterogenity of peripheries...