Power & Global Inequality - Summaries of Readings PDF

Preview

Summary

Power Global Inequality Ayoob Inequality and Theorising in IR: The Case for Subaltern Realism (2002) Thesis Knowledge is power. The manufacturing and reproduction of knowledge creates power. This has important consequences for inequality those states that are treated unequally have this legitimised ...

Description

Power & Global Inequality Ayoob – Inequality and Theorising in IR: The Case for Subaltern Realism (2002) Thesis Knowledge is power. The manufacturing and reproduction of knowledge creates power. This has important consequences for inequality – those states that are treated unequally have this legitimised through the fact that they do not possess knowledge. -

-

The theories that do exist in IR privilege the experiences/interests/dilemmas of the Western portions of states… even within the academia, the inequality is rampant. By not explaining variation or experiences of the vast majority of weaker/developing states, IR theories’ power is radically restricted. IR scholarship neglects to look at inequality and at smaller states. Monopoly on knowledge that rich states maintains informs the thought patterns of policymakers and analysts across the globe. o The West have instituted the academic norms for study.

Two major factors have created normative tensions in international politics… -

Unprecedented increase in new states through rapid decolonisation and USSR’s dissolution Continued attempt by these states to replicate European state-building trajectories, despite a vastly different international setting, where small countries are more vulnerable to physical/normative intrusion by stronger states.

THESE TWO FACTORS CAN PROVIDE CAUSAL EXPLANATIONS FOR BEHAVIOUR OF THE MAJORITY OF STATES, AND THE ORIGINS OF THE MAJORITY OF CONFLICTS! Neoliberalism/neorealism are insufficient, in that they don’t pay attention to the transformation of the international system from the numerical expansion of states. Points regarding the relationship between the West and the Rest 1) Stability in Europe was achieved at expense of stability in much of the rest of the world – think Cold War. Proxy wars and superpowers intensified disorder in the system 2) 3rd World states are economically and militarily far too dependent on richer benefactors a. Immediate benefits might be reaped – like IMF loans for military hardware, sold cheaply – but this comes at the great cost of premature economic liberalisation i. Which causes deindustrialisation, major negative political/social disruption, and an exacerbation of intra/interstate conflict. 1. THIS MAKES ABSOLUTE GAINS FOR EITHER SIDE DOUBTFUL! 3) Most economic interactions occur in the North American/European/Japanese triad. FDI is highly concentrated amongst these three regions too. a. This makes interdependence arguments relatively redundant in explaining how unequal states benefit… they are hardly important. 4) Much interaction between 3rd World states is with those in their immediate neighbourhood and is concerned with security issues. Arbitrary nature of post-colonial borders has made for exclusionary nation-building projects, often accompanied by cross-border violence (Rwanda) a. Common theories don’t apply to 3rd World states. 5) Institutions promoting regional security/economic co-operation (ASEAN, ECOWAS, etc.) have had limited success

6) Despite juridical sovereignty granted by the UN, LDCs aren’t immune to challenges to their authority in the same way that developed states are – ethnic divisions, coups, US interventions in the CW… all provide examples of the overturning of sovereignty! 7) Great power intervened to advance their own global/regional agendas in many places. Vietnam, Mozambique, Congo, Afghanistan, Somalia… the US and the USSR suck! Conclusions -

-

How can we help weaker states? o Increased legitimacy and effectiveness  Effective statehood overcomes economic underdevelopment/poverty problems. Advising removal of trade barriers, as the IMF and World Bank do, is bad! States should be strong and should intervene in their economies. Most LDCs receive pittance in FDI for the trade liberalisation that ruins them SUBALTERN REALISM o Realism because it accepts statism, survival and self-help principles. o This perspective is grounded in existing realities of international system. Employing the perspective outlined above in the article will help to provide more comprehensive explanations for the origins of the majority of conflicts in the international system. o It attempts to construct a comprehensive picture by weaving together several different intellectual strands.  Creation of political communities provided by classical realist thought  Historical-sociological literature concerning formation of European states  The operation of international norms in ordering international societies  Current predicaments facing weak and vulnerable 3rd World states. o This theory fills important gaps in the literature, “and corrects the acute state of inequality that pervades IR theorising”.

Subaltern realism = realism for weaker states!

Baldwin – Power & IR (2002) This article provides a neat little overview! -

-

Power was previously understood to be about resources, particularly military ones Now, it’s not so much a “property” of states, as a description of the relationship between them. Measured not through material power, but through observing behavioural change (beliefs, attitudes, opinions, expectations, actions, etc.) It’s multidimensional o Scope – power that state A has over state B can vary from issue to issue o Domain – how many actors are influenced by A? o Weight – probability that A can affect B o Costs – the costs to A of affecting B are relevant to assessment of whether A tries to influence B, and whether B tries to stop being influenced o Means – what ways does A have of influencing B? Economic, military, diplomatic, etc

Problems for Power & IR

-

Hard to compare states, as historical contexts matter – a nuclear stockpile may prevent conflict between some actors and set it off between others! Resources aren’t ALWAYS useful – a satellite network helps in some situations, but not in others It’s difficult to know the power-related intentions of another state Actions can have powers that they didn’t intend to have To measure power, you need a defined conception of it… how to measure RELATIONS of power? Correlates of War project measures power as a property, but not as a relationship.

Different theories/conceptions of power -

-

Balance of power theory o Implies that change in relative political power can be observed and measured… but it’s illusive o Power’s a property in this theory. Military force in the context of war-winning ability! o Morgenthau discusses balance of power at length (1960) but admits it to mean four different things  Not the most useful or scientific/measurable conception of power, for sure! Neorealism o Waltz was terrible for definitions of power – it was amorphous.

The study of power has raised many issues… -

-

-

Military power o IR focussed too much on military power in the past  Other forms  Economic statecraft (IMF)  Public diplomacy (NYE)  Agenda setting in IOs  Etc.  Positive sanctions (carrots, not just sticks and threats!)  Comparative influence techniques (little to no research has been done however on how economic statecraft can influence, comparative to diplomatic statecraft Constructivism vs rationalism o Some theories measure brute material forces, but norms/values/ideas/cultural contexts all have impacts on power too! Institutions and power – institutions can enhance power of some countries, but constrain power of others Distribution of power needs greater study.

Barnett & Duvall – Power in Global Governance (2005) Useful typology of power  Compulsory power – one actor has direct control over another, and it’s compulsory that B does as A wants o Not only states can do this – institutions like the World Bank can too, through conditioned loans.

 Institutional power – actors exercise indirect control over one another, perhaps by designing international institutions which work to the advantage of A at the expense of B and C. o Formal and informal agenda setting… situations of dependence… governing biases toward certain states thanks to institutional set up… all of these represent institutional power!  Structural power – capitalist world economy produces some situation where rich countries can alter their own circumstances and fortunes, yet LDCs are basically subjected to the throes and workings of capitalism. o Whereas institutional power focuses on the determination of social capacities and interests – by shaping self-understanding, and interests, of states and actors. Kind of like creating your preferences – Lucas’ 3rd face of power!  Productive power – defining development in a neoliberal way orients social activity in a particular direction. You can shape whose knowledge matters! o Overlaps with structural power… the difference is that more general and diffuse social processes describe productive power. Structural power is when a structure shapes or entrenches preferences. Productive power is when a discourse (i.e. how the “natural”, “possible”, “normal” are defined shapes or entrenches preferences! This typology allows us to detach discussions of power from simple realist ones and encourages us to see the various ways in which power can work. Use this typology throughout an essay! It’s strong. Make sure you have a good understanding of it. 3 varieties of liberal writing exist in IR writing (Hurrell) -

-

-

Liberal Institutionism o International institutions help to ameliorate disputes and enhance collective welfare.  Often overlooks the ways in which power can work (agenda setting powers, institution constitution issues (who determines them?)), and the fact that dependence lurks below interdependence. Don’t fall privy to this mistake!  Thus, do institutions really level out power? Or do they serve to entrench pre-existing issues? Liberal constructivism o Institutions are the place where new norms are created, and where states forge and change their identities  Overlooks power that states have in determining WHICH states succeed, or which NGOs are created, etc.  Transnational society privileges some voices over others, thanks to these contained set of values – constructivists fail to accept this! It’s a source of inequality.  Norms shape the balance of power. Don’t overlook this! Liberal hegemony o American hegemony has special characteristics that shape the international order  Overlooks the fact that weaker actors don’t have freely-chosen consent in submitting to American hegemony. They are dominated.

So, of the liberals that write about power, they neglect to accept that institutions don’t always act to level the playing field – in fact, they can serve to make things worse for the LDCs. All of these Hurrell counter-arguments above can be employed in defence of realism! National interests are reflected, and that’s the most important thing.

Nye – Public Diplomacy & Soft Power (2008) Thesis Soft-power = obtaining outcomes desired through attraction, not coercion/payment. Soft power is determined by what resources a country has – culture, values, policies. Smarter/more powerful countries combine soft and hard power. Engaging in soft-power diplomacy is powerful, yet requires an understanding of the roles of credibility, self-criticism, and civil society. Definition Soft-power – getting others to want what you want through co-option, not co-ercion! Other countries might want to follow yours through admiration of your values/example/prosperity etc. Relationship to Public Diplomacy? -

Values and the handling of relations are resources that can generate soft-power Governments use public diplomacy to communicate with publics and governments of other countries… broadcasting, subsidising cultural exports, arranging exchanges… all soft power!

Three key resources that generate soft power -

-

Culture o Literature, art, education, radio-led foreign broadcasting, propaganda  E.g. Nazi films, Hollywood, BBC World Service, etc. Political values o Freedom, individualism, equality, transparency Foreign policies o Must be seen as legitimate… but can range from invasion to aid!

Politics in an information age (where information is easily disseminated and readily available) may be all about whose story, constructed from the above, wins! Particularly since inter-democracy conflicts have waned. This grants credibility, which is highly important and can be used to give an actor’s voice greater volume. [CAN USE THIS TO LINK DPT WITH SOFT POWER]. “Without underlying national credibility, instruments of public diplomacy cannot translate cultural resources into soft power of attraction!”. Key dimensions to public diplomacy -

Daily communications – to press, foreign and domestic, through conferences and statements Strategic communications – campaigns, framing (releasing certain information), stressing various policies more than others Lasting relationships with key individuals – scholarships, exchanges, training, media channels, etc. o These are all able to help create an attractive image of a country!  But only if the “product” itself is popular… Hollywood nudity doesn’t go down well in the Middle East, for instance.

Norway – case study – 5 million people, but a reputation for being a “force for peace”. It has helped mediate conflict in the Middle East, Colombia, and Sri Lanka, and provides a large foreign aid budget.

It is always highly involved in UN Peacekeeping Operations. All this, despite lacking international language or transnational culture! Why has wielding soft power become harder? -

Paradox of plenty – so much information in the world via internet, that the information provided by governments has been crowded out somewhat. Governments increasingly can’t control private elements in their countries, e.g. Hollywood The media prefer scandals to calmer diplomacy There’s no market for broadcasting in some languages The internet has made postmodern publics sceptical of authority Some countries have developed reputations that they can’t shift, i.e. US in the Muslim world More NGOs exist than ever before, and some are more trusted/established than governments. NGOs can be powerful… if they oppose certain governments, it can be a blow.

What CAN governments do? -

-

It’s sometimes domestically difficult to self-criticise, though this can often be an effective way of establishing credibility. Part of America’s soft power grows out of the fact that Congress, the courts, and the free press can all criticise and correct policies. The military can be used to promote soft power, through joint-training programmes and through committing to positive UN peacekeeping missions. Understand that public diplomacy isn’t zero-sum – both sides can gain, and their objectives can be reinforced through the presenting of a united front!

Conclusions  Power includes a soft element more than ever, given the irrelevance of war to conflict.  The current struggle against transnational terrorism is a struggle over winning hearts/minds  Public diplomacy is a key tool for the dissemination of soft power o You need the support of civil society (a discerning domestic public), credibility, and self-criticism (which feeds into credibility) to succeed.  Public diplomacy that degenerates into propaganda not only fails to convince, but undercuts soft power.

Payne – The Global Politics of Unequal Development (2005) Major debates on power… -

-

Hegemony o The US is no longer powerful enough to shape its own consensual hegemonic order  It doesn’t seek G7/G8 approval for economic policies, knowing that it doesn’t have the influence  Whilst it put together the coalition to fight the Gulf War in 1991, it relied on German/Japanese/Arab funds to pay for it  Pax Americana is definitely over – ideological command cannot win over allies now.  Too much negative discourse surrounding the US, particularly since Trump took the helm, for it to ever have its American moment extended this far. Globalisation

Interconnectedness in trade, finance, production, and culture on the rise Parts of some state are becoming enmeshed in the globalising order, but others don’t engage. These parts are marginalised!  Think America. Role of states o States should remain the primary units of analysis… but the differences that we analyse in them shouldn’t just be their material capabilities  Different forms, types, sizes, histories, motivations. Development o Should be redefined, for the contemporary era, as collective building by social and political actors of a country, of a functioning economy and political system. o o

-

-

Thesis From the above they determine… -

The world lacks a genuinely hegemonic global order Globalisation should be taken seriously States are of primary importance, but face significant restructuring in the current era Development is a universal problem faced by all states

Krasner – Structural Conflict (1985) Common wisdom – 3rd World should follow free-market ideologies… the North should facilitate these, and North-South relations will strengthen as a result Krasner’s alternative thesis… -

3rd World states are also concerned with threat and security… and are more prone to problems, since their institutions are typically weaker! They want power and control as much as wealth… but these are incompatible with Northern interests. o North-South relations are bound to be conflictual, and/or the North are bound to subject the South to their agenda. South have no military and so cannot pressure the West. o Rules (prescriptions for behaviour, through WTO/IMF) and norms (liberal trading regime, for example, or democracy) help subject the South to Northern wishes.  The South actually would benefit more from authoritative regimes  Allocation is directed, and non-state actors have limited property rights. This provides more stable transaction flows, and greater control.  Thanks to poor institutions, sudden shocks to an economy are proportionately harder-hitting for LDCs.

Authoritative regimes provide developing countries with greater control and wealth -

Think Japan, South Korea, China, Europe before the 1970s…! The Global South wanted a New International Economic Order o Institutions – accommodate authoritarian regimes in pre-existing ones and create new ones that are sympathetic to authoritative resource allocation. Redefine property rights such that technology can be transferred to LDCs.

o

Allow states to exercise control over a wider range of activities  Latin America led fight for extended economic zones in the ocean  NEIO was culmination of the above. Where is it now? Obsolete, tbh.

3rd World Goals -

Economic growth International political equality Influence in decision making procedures Independence

Developing countries tried to achieve these through organisations like OPEC, ASEAN, G-77… alliances with major power… bilateral economic agreements… international loans and the receipt of foreign aid. Ultimately, I don’t deem them to have been particularly successful. They may have had a moment of success in the 1970s, but this wasn’t sustained. In the 1970s though, things were gained… -

-

By working within regimes o Eurodollar loans o Tax treaties o Bilateral aid o Civil aviation o Nuclear non-proliferation o Trade agreements By changing regimes o National claims by LDCs to oceans’ resources o OPEC o Collective self-reliance o NIEO o Commodity agreements with Northern countries, which were fairer

YET – the desires of the North conditioned these. Once the moment of détente and US-problems passed, they didn’t need to secede any desires or demands of Third World countries. So, they didn’t. Now, they don’t. Did the 3rd World succeed? Analysed through 3 things – existing international structures; ability to formulate a new coherent set of ideas; attitude and power of the North towards t...