Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Die SlideShare-Präsentation wird heruntergeladen. ×

Betselot liberalism and Neo liberalism.ppt

Nächste SlideShare
Wird geladen in …3

Hier ansehen

1 von 37 Anzeige

Weitere Verwandte Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Betselot liberalism and Neo liberalism.ppt (20)

Aktuellste (20)


Betselot liberalism and Neo liberalism.ppt

  1. 1. Liberalism (Pluralism)  From a liberal perspective, international relations is not only about state-state relations; it is about transnational relations that means relations between people, groups and organizations from different countries  Due to this emphasis on society, state and many different actors, liberalism is also called pluralism
  2. 2. Basic Concepts and Issues in Liberal Theory:  Liberals focus on norms, regimes, economic interdependence, international organisations  no distinction between  ‘high’ politics (high-level relations between states) and  ‘low’ politics (internal socio-economic issues)  İssues of terrorism, drug trafficking, human rights, environment, technology and finance are as important as security issues
  3. 3. Evolution of Liberalism - Enlightenment period liberalism (liberal universalism) - Idealism that emerged after First World War - Institutional Liberalism
  4. 4. Liberalism: Key Assumptions  Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, “Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition” (1977)  States are not the only important actors in world politics. Non-state actors are important entities in IR that cannot be ignored.  International Organizations (IOs) can be independent actors in their own right.  The organization’s own decision makers, bureaucrats have considerable influence in agenda setting, namely determining which issues are most important politically.  IOs are more than simply arenas within which sovereign states compete.  Moreover, Multinational Corporations like General Motors, DaimlerChrysler, Toyota Motor, Ford Motor or Phillips cannot be ignored as well in a highly interdependent world economy.
  5. 5. Second Assumption of Liberalism  For liberals, the state is not a unitary actor. State is composed of individual bureaucracies, interest groups, and individuals that attempt to influence foreign policy. There may be competition, coalition, conflict, compromise among these actors.  To speak of a foreign policy of Turkey, US or UK means that foreign policy decisions were determined by competition among a number of actors. Foreign policy preferences reflect the multiple actors within the state. Liberals break the state into various components, they reject the notion of the state as an integrated entity.
  6. 6. Second Assumption of Liberalism  Domestic actors influence how states define their foreign policy interests  Societal actors compete with each other for access to and influence upon decision-makers  National decision-makers are responsive to interest group lobbying  Both governmental and non governmental actors may take actions that are contrary to the preferences of central state authorities. For liberals such an interaction not only happens within the state but across national borders, so it has a transnational dimension.
  7. 7. Third Assumption of Liberalism  States may not be rational actors: A particular policy may be suggested just because it serves bureaucratic power or prestige of certain groups.  Moreover, misperception of decision makers as a result of incomplete information, bias, and uncertainty is also a key focus of attention for liberal scholars.
  8. 8. Fourth Assumption of Liberalism  They reject the idea that the agenda of international politics is dominated primarily by military-security issues.  For them the agenda of international politics is extensive and diversified and economic and social issues are often at the forefront of foreign policy debates.  The problems of energy, natural resources, environment, pollution are as important as questions of security and territorial competition.
  9. 9. Fifth Assumption of Liberalism  There are important linkages between domestic structures and processes and international politics  The international system is not completely anarchic. Some domains of international relations are characterized by “international regimes”. So, cooperation between states can be achieved.
  10. 10. Basic Liberal Values  Liberals focus on values of order, liberty, justice, and toleration into international relations. All individuals are juridically equal and posses basic rights to education, access to a free press, and religious toleration.Domestic and international institutions are required to protect these values.  State posseses only the authority given to it by the people  All individuals have the right to own property  Most effective economic exchange system is market economy. Economy should not be subordinated to bureaucratic control
  11. 11. Peaceful World Order  Rational individual, Republican/democratic state, commercial interdependence, universal rights, international law, international institutions peaceful world order
  12. 12. Historical Overview  Liberal perspective is based on the ideas developed during the Enligtenment period.  The development of the idea of Republican state and free trade led to the emergence of liberal perspective in IR.  Cosmopolitan morality could be achieved through the exercise of reason and through the creation of democratic states.
  13. 13. Liberal Universalism of the Enligtenment Period  The focus is on how the cooperation among Republican states, free trade and mutual interdependence lead to perpetual peace and international harmony  Focus on the individual, rationality, progressive history and positivist science  Bourgeoisie emerged as a new class and supported the ideas of the Enligtenment such as the autonomy of the individual, equality, tolerance, freedom and property
  14. 14. Focus on the Individual  John Locke (1632-1704) emphasizes that all individuals have rights such as freedom, equality, property, and right for living. A state is responsible for protecting these rights.  Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) in his work “Perpetual Peace”: A peace federation based on the rational individual and Republican government can be created.
  15. 15. Immanuel Kant and Perpetual Peace  Peace can be achieved through 3 steps: 1. Human rationality: rational individuals having moral values create peaceful society thus a peaceful world. 2. Constitution Based Republican state: as all individuals are rational, they know that they will bear the costs of a war. In a republican state they can prevent their leaders from going to war. The rule of law, seperation of legislation, executive, and judiciary.Respecting each other’s rights and freedom 3. Spreading human rationality, free trade and republicanism worldwide: perpetual peace
  16. 16. The Importance of Free Trade  Free trade brings people from different race, religion and language together.  Protectionist economic policies lead to insecurity and also low level of interaction among states  Borders that seperate states should be transcended and common values should be created. Free trade is essential in creating these common values  It is believed that market societies are against war.
  17. 17. The Importance of Free Trade  For creating wealth for the world, there should be increase in production. This will satisfy human needs and prevent evil intentions of individuals.  International distribution of wealth can be equal if individuals freely pursue their interests all around the world.  The increase in production and equal distribution of wealth depend on a free international trade.  If all states try to maximize their economic interests, then whole world will benefit from it. Global wealth will lead to global peace.
  18. 18. How to Avoid War?  The spread of economic relations between states makes war costly. Because states have common interests due to mutual economic interdependence. In order not to lose their interests, states avoid from war.  Establishment of democratic states.  Democracy should be preferred instead of monarchy, free trade instead of protectionism, common security instead of balance of power  Focus on individual rights and economic welfare avoids war. Rational individuals create harmonious societies which in turn create international peace.
  19. 19. Complex Interdependence and Transnationalism:  Keohane and Nye, Power and Interdependence (1977): the world had become more pluralistic in terms of actors involved and these actors became more dependent on each other.  4 basic characteristic of this pluralistic world:  - increasaing linkages between states and non-state actors  - no distinction between high and low politics: Mutual interests extend beyond trade and development issues. Due to the globalization of security concerns like terrorism, drug trufficking and diseas like AIDS, any country’s security cannot be addressed unilaterally.  - multiple channels for integration among actors across national boundaries  - decline of the importance of military force. Force will not be of primary importance  Broad view of power and its sources: economic, social etc.
  20. 20. The Role of Interdependence  Throughout history states sought power by means of military force and territorial expansion, but for industrialized countries economic development and foreign trade are more important and less costly for achieving prosperity  Industrialized counties like Japan and Germany refrained from high military expenditure and economic self sufficiency, instead they focused on trade and increased interdependence  Liberals argue that high division of labor in international economy increases interdependence between states and reduces conflicts between states
  21. 21. ‘Liberal Institutionalism’:  Institutions are enduring sets of norms, rules and expected patterns of behaviour  Gains from institutions:  facilitate activities that are beneficial to states (e.g. trade)  reduce states’s fear of each other  provide a flow of information and opportunities to negotiate between states, facilitate the risks of tricky negotiations (e.g. over arms control)  enhance the ability of governments to monitor others’ compliance and implementing their commitments, thus the ability to make commitments credible
  22. 22. Democratic Peace Theory Bruce Russet and Michael Doyle reject that war is caused by bad people (human nature) or the absence of a central authority (anarchy). For them, regime-type is important. Democracies do not fight each other.  Following Immanuel Kant, Michael Doyle highlights that citizens in general will oppose wars because: - the existence of domestic political cultures based on peaceful conflict resolution - democratic governments are controlled by their citizens, who will oppose war because they do not want to bear the costs of wars. Governments, being rational actors, avoid starting wars in order to maximise their chances of success on election day • Germany’s opposition to the war in Iraq might be explained in terms of Chancellor Schroder’s opportunistic reading of domestic public opinion. The stance of Germany public opinion is consistent with the belief that citizens are generally war-averse.
  23. 23. Democratic Peace Theory - democracies hold common moral values which create a pacific union. Peaceful way of solving conflicts are seen as morally superior to violent behavior, and this attitude is transferred to international relations. - freedom of expression and free communication promote mutual understanding internationally and help to ensure that political leaders will act in accordance with their citizens’s views - mutual gain from economic cooperation and interdependence also contribute to peace
  24. 24. Challenges to Liberal Perspective (pluralism)  Neorealists criticize liberals for exaggerating the role of institutions. Neo-realists argue that states cooperate through institutions but they do it for their own interest, and the strong prevail in international relations. Institutions are subject to states  Neorealist also challenge liberal argument that democratic states do not fight each other. Neorealists argue that today’s friend can turn out to be tomorrow’s enemy, whether they are a democracy or not. For neorealists, as long as there is anarchy, there is no escape from self-help and security dilemma.
  25. 25. Waltz’s response to pluralism  Serious challenge from realism came in 1979 with Kenneth Waltz’s “Theory of International Politics”  International system is still anarchical, nothing had changed with the advent of interdependence. In domestic affairs, there is authority, administration and law, while international politics is characterized by power struggle.
  26. 26. Neoliberal (Institutionalism)  Pluralists of 1970s  ‘neo-liberal institutionalists’ in the 1980-90s  They try to explain durability of institutions despite change in the distribution of power in the international system  Approximated neo-realism by accepting two of its fundamental principles:  the anarchic structure of the international system  States are rational actors  But kept a ‘liberal’ focus : the possibilities for inter- state cooperation under anarchy
  27. 27. Core assumptions of Neo- Liberal Institutionalism  States are key actors, but not the only significant actors. States are rational, always seeking to maximize their interests in all issue-areas.  In a competitive environment, states seek to maximize absolute gains through cooperation. As rational actors, states prefer cooperation.They are not concerned with the relative gains of others.  The greatest obstacle to cooperation is non- compliance and cheating by states.  If institutions are seen mutually beneficial by states, then they will shift their loyalties to these institutions.
  28. 28. Mutual Interests  Neo-liberal institutional perspective is more relevant in issue areas where states have mutual interests like trade. Most states believe that all states will benefit from an open trade system. However, cooperation in military or national security areas, where someone’s gain is perceived as someone else’s loss (zero-sum perspective) may be more difficult to achieve.
  29. 29. Innovations of neoliberalism:  Cooperation in the context of anarchy will be fragile:  ‘free-rider’ states (those that share benefits of cooperation without contributing to its costs) undermine the legitimacy of cooperation for those who do meet the costs  Focus on international institutions
  30. 30. Neo-liberal Institutionalists  Neoliberalism explains the durability of institutions despite significant changes in the international system.  Institutions exert a causal force on international relations, shaping state preferences and locking them into cooperative arrangements.  Neo-liberal institutionalists see institutions as the mediator and the means to achieve cooperation in the international system. Regimes and institutions govern a competitive and anarchic international system and they encourage multilateralism and cooperation for securing national interests.  They focus on the creation and maintenance of institutions associated with managing the globalization process.
  31. 31. International Regime  If states are bad, create “regimes”: A set of formal and informal rules, or norms that constrain the behavior of units in the international system and regulate their relations  Regimes help to facilitate cooperation.  Behavior is limited by the norms and rules of the regime.  Regimes increase the stability and predictability of behaviour of states under anarchy  Regimes consist of:  1. Principles  2. Norms  3. Rules and decision-making procedures  Example: WTO
  32. 32. The Role of International Institutions and Regimes  Institutions and regimes:  facilitate transparency  reduce transaction costs and the likelihood of cheating (free- riding)  States will create rules and abide by them, and maintain them even if that may become costly  Institutions and regimes serve to create new forms of commonality through the experience of cooperation  This changes participants’ perceptions of themselves and their interests
  33. 33. Neo-realist and Neo-liberalist Debate: ‘Neo-neo synthesis’  Both agree that international system is anarchic. But neoliberal institutions emphasize that the role of anarchy can be mitigated through international institutions and regimes  Neorealists argue that international cooperation is hard to achive, difficult to maintain, and dependent on state power. Neo-liberals believe that cooperation is easy to achieve where states have mutual interest  Neo-liberals think that actors with common interests try to maximize absolute gains. They ignore relative gains. But neorealists argue that states are concerned about relative gains as they do not want others to gain more.
  34. 34. Gains from cooperation:  relative vs. absolute gains  Neoliberals emphasise absolute gains  as long as a state is getting rewards from cooperation it does not matter if a neighbouring state is doing better  Liberal trade theory:  parties’ comparative advantage from trade may be different;  importantly, they all still gain something
  35. 35. Gains from cooperation:  Neorealists focus on relative gains:  assume that states will be interested not only in how well they are doing but also how well others are doing  This stems from the focus on the balance of power  States gauge their action based on the relative distribution of power in the international system  any changes in relative wealth and power will affect state behaviour and, consequently, the dynamics of cooperation.  The question for realists is how to get cooperation going:  states would only be prepared to meet the costs of cooperation if every one of them can reasonably expect to gain more than any other participating state
  36. 36. ‘Neo-neo synthesis’  a rapprochement between neo-realism and neo- liberalism  ‘neo-neo synthesis’  A significant influence of realism, but also an input from liberal institutionalism:  Ex: Barry Buzan’s concept of ‘mature anarchy’: in parts of the international system, anarchy is qualitatively different from how it is envisaged in the pessimistic classical realist view  this difference has come about as a result of institutionalised cooperation practices that changed states’ expectations and perceptions of what is acceptable in international relations
  37. 37. The Differences of Neorealism and Neoliberalism  Neo-realists argue that anarchy makes states focus on relative power, security, and survival in a competitive international system. Neo-liberals are more concerned with economic welfare and non- military issues like international environment issues.  Neo-liberals see institutions and regimes as important forces in international relations. They claim that institutions and regimes facilitate cooperation. Neo- realists argue that neo-liberalists exaggerate the impacts of institutions and regimes on states. International institutions and regimes cannot mitigate the constraining effect of anarchy on cooperation