week five: liberal theories of IR

What is liberalism?

Liberalism derives from the Latin terms ‘liber’ which means both ‘free’ and ‘generous’ and liberalis, which means ‘befitting a free born person’.

What are the disgreements on the origins of liberalism?

Some believe it is associated with European Enlightenments and Atlantic revolutions, others argue for it to be in antiquIty (Strauss 1995). Though Kant, Locke, and Wollstonecraft are central. Liberalism does tend to vary among thinkers though - not all are self-professed liberals.

What is liberalism then?

A family of ideas which may typically include freedom of liberty, equality, rationality, rights, rule of law, individuality, progress and property - though this ‘family’ is somewhat dysfunctional - divided over questions of rightful heirs, legitimate offspring and sibling rivalries.

Why does it remain important to study liberalism if there’s so much conflict in defining it?

1. Liberalism is an enduring traditional political tradition over two centuries old.

2. Its legacy has become entangled with the modern ‘West’ and IR is impossible without some kind of liberalism

3. Studying how liberalism is evoked, mobilised and contested at key moments in the history of IR promises insights into key central intellectual and political debates.

What is the relationship between liberalism and empire?

Far from clear cut.

• Bell (2016) argues that the relationship between liberalism and empire is variously understood as rejectionist, necessary or contingent.

• Rejectionists = Spanish New World possessions ‘in vain would you continue your claim to the title of liberals’.

• Critics of liberalism - postcolonial, decolonial scholars, claim liberalism is part of imperialism (Hutchings 1999), particularly a faith in linear progress that designates some societies as more advanced than others.

• As a contingent claim → there is nothing inherent to liberalism that is either hospitable or hostile to empire.

What do liberals who support empire have in common?

• Variously evoked economic benefit, power politics, the right and duty to spread civilisaiton, republican virtue and the warrior ethic in pursuit of their aims (Bell 2016). Spread liberal ideas and paradoxical ‘civilise’ and ‘moralise’ populations at home (Rosenblatt 2018).

• Flourishing of progressivist conceptions of universalism, which not only understood Europe as the apex of civilisation, but often based on an idealised vision of the ‘human’ as a rational, autonomous, propertied male.

• Liberal imperialists often advanced a narrow normative conception of the nation that had its prerequisites the common political culture and capacity for self-government that were characteristic of a small group of European nations

  • Essentially, the liberal justification for empire was accompanied by a civilisational confidence that flourished in the age of empire. A combination of material conditions including the decline of the ancien regime, technological developments from the industrial revolution and the ascendancy of race ‘science’ that imagined European races to be superior served to consolidate these views (Bell 2016).

Why does liberalism continue to remain entangled with empire?

The influence of race ‘science’ and faith in linear progress consolidated what WEB Du Bois termed the ‘global colour line’. Some argue that at the advent of IR, the discipline was primarily concerned with colonial administration of Great Britain and her colonies, and primarily the management of race difference across the US.

What is liberalism in IR?

-          Opposes the ‘zero sum’ relations between states that realism proposes

§  Belief in mutual beneficial relations, individual human rights and state sovereignty (negotiating benefits nations, hence they will engage in it rather than go to war)

§  Belief in market capitalism and market regulation

§  Associated with democracy, free speech, negotiation and soft power

§  Support for multilateralism, interdependence and International Organisations

§  Support for freer trade, open communication and globalisation (mutual benefits can be part of international relations)

§  This adds up to three stands of Liberal IR:

o   Liberalism with a focus on economic independence particularly through trade (IPE);

o   Liberalism with a focus on democratic peace;

o   Liberalism with a focus on law and International Organisations (Ikenberry). Liberals don’t see nations in a general state of war and believe security is not always the central concern of individuals or states.

What are the three major developments of liberalism?

The major developments
1. Wilson’s 14 points in 1919 and the creation of the League of Nations
2. The Atlantic Charter, the creation of the UN and the Bretton Woods
System
3. "We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty.“ President John F. Kennedy, Inaugural address, January 20,1961

-          JFK’s speech on the success and survival of liberty, a common theme of US Presidency speeches.

Is liberalism primarily concerned with the domestic or international?

Liberalism is typically concerned with the domestic, and views it as the shaping factor and motivator of foreign policy. For example, the theory that democratic nations don’t go to war with eachother is a ‘domestic image’ because it’s their internal political system. (known as Domestic Peace Thesis)

-          Neo-liberalism is a development from classic liberalism.

o   Classical liberals inform new ideas and ways of thinking, which leads to ‘neo’ liberals.

§  These people were looking for new ways of liberal thought in politics

§  Ultimately the defining factor that separates the neo from the classical is the shift in image focus – neoliberalism focuses on the top, or rather the international image.

What is interdependence?

Interdependence: “mutual dependence”; a situation “characterized by reciprocal effects among countries or actors in different countries” (K&N 2012 [1997], p.7)

What is interconnectedness?

Interconnectedness: a situation characterised by interactions that “do not have significant costly effects”
(K&N 2012 [1997], p.8)

Ultimately, the thesis states that nations become enmeshed and more enmeshed to each other by creating new binding treaties and will change their functioning behaviour in the IR system.

What is the role of institutions for liberals?

-          Important sites of power and mutually beneficial to states in the international system. Create huge benefits for all involved states and allows them to develop solutions to common problems and reduce the risk of a security dilemma

What is the security dilemma?

o   Security dilemma: one state takes action to solve a problem, which is then perceived as a threat by another state which might take action and just lead to retaliatory effects

What is the democratic peace thesis?

• Democratic peace theory is first set out by Michael Doyle (1983, 1986), it challenges the realist claims that peace depends on the systemic balance of power rather than the domestic nature of governments.

• Liberal states ‘claim that governments founded on a respect for individual liberty exercise "restraint" and "peaceful intentions" in their foreign policy’

• ‘Liberal states are different. They are indeed peaceful [among themselves]. They are also prone to make war [with non-liberal states].’

• citizens appreciate that the benefits of trade can be enjoyed only under conditions of peace. Thus the very existence of liberal states, such as the U.S., Japan, and our European allies, makes for peace.’

[Peace among democratic states...but not with autocratic states...]

‘Even though wars often cost more than the economic return they generate, liberal republics also are prepared to protect and promote—sometimes forcibly—democracy, private property, and the rights of individuals overseas against nonrepublics, which, because they do not authentically represent the rights of individuals, have no rights to noninterference.’ [liberal imperialism]

• Liberal Democratic Peace Thesis argues that first, democracies are committed to the
principle of resolving political differences nonviolently, and they adhere to this in their
relations with other democracies no less than in their internal politics. Second, the
publics in democratic societies, who would bear the cost of war, are unwilling to
support such action against another democracy.
• Democratic Peace Thesis: “No one should argue that such wars are impossible; but
preliminary evidence does appear to indicate that there exists a significant
predisposition against warfare between liberal states...a liberal zone of peace, a pacific
union, has been maintained.”
• Why no peace with non-Democratic states...“To simplify greatly, if the explanation for
the separate peace between liberal states is due to their liberalism, it is tempting to
argue that relations between liberal and non-liberal states cannot be peaceful, for the
latter are, in a sense, at war with their own people.”
• US “unwilling to accord non-liberal states the same degree of respect that they give
to other liberal states”

What is Fukuyama’s thesis in the end of history?

Fukuyama makes the argument that the tide of history and world politics is heading towards the end point of history; capitalism and liberalism.

A key proof that the theory didn’t work is China – he missed far too many things in his doomsday thesis.

-          Doyle’s argument is level 2 – democracy

-          Fukuyama’s argument is level 1 – people will become more cooperative, peaceful but dull, coming out of our basic nature and desires (the desire for equality and recognition tha triumphs over others)

-          He argues that this is the old world of politics – more dominant people dominated weaker ones and all nations are moving in an increasingly homogenised society where equality, recognition and social equality is recognised and that liberal democratic capitalism is the only way to have these desires recognised.

 

• Overly Simplistic view of Fukuyama’s arguments: Liberal Democratic Capitalism Triumphed in the Cold War and has become the only economic and political system left to progress towards.
• “His argument is primarily a normative one. At the end of the twentieth century, the combination of liberal democracy and capitalism has proved superior to any alternative political/economic system, and the reason lies in its ability to satisfy the basic drives of human nature. The latter is composed of two fundamental desires. One is the desire for material goods and wealth and the other (more fundamental) desire is for recognition of our worth as human beings by those around us.”
• FF argument: “While economic growth can be promoted under a variety of political regimes, including fascist ones, only liberal democracies can meet the fundamental human need for recognition, political freedom and equality.” Hegelian theory. (Griffiths, et al.)
• History struggle between Megalothymia (action of powerful people) and isothymia (humble demand
for recognition in the form of equality rather than superiority).

• “Liberal democracy is that it represents the end point of the struggle”
• “Liberalism pacifies and de-politicises the aristocratic world of mastery by turning
politics into economics.”
• “Fukuyama argues that while wars will not disappear, the homogenization of values
among the great powers will promote peace among the most powerful states”
• Whig history: “He argues that, in Southern Europe, Latin America, parts of Asia and
Eastern Europe, free-market economics and parliamentary democracy are, with some
important exceptions, becoming the norm. He claims that there were only 13 liberal
democracies in 1940, 37 in 1960 and 62 in 1990. He also traces the decline of war among democratic states over time, arguing that peace between states correlates closely with their internal convergence towards liberal democratic norms.”
• Lament: “Fukuyama is concerned that the subordination of megalothymia to
isothymia may be also the pursuit of equality at the expense of the pursuit of
excellence.” (Griffiths et al). Conservative/republican politics.

-          Fukuyama is actually arguing that liberal democracy is not something to celebrate. He is kind of a conservative deep down and thinks that this society will be dull.

-          He makes the argument when people have dominated eachother and done horrible things for power, the world used to be more interesting and there was more greatness. They strived for something more than the mundane and it’s ultimately an argument against equality. Kind of the argument that sees hierarchy or aristocracy as necessary for greatness/innovation.

What does Joseph Nye say about ‘soft power?’

Develops concept that what world politics has arrived at is a recognition by great powers that they’ll be much more effective if they use soft rather than hard power. IE Nuclear weapons is not very coercive
- Soft power is the use of persuasion, attraction and co-option to win over foreigners (global public opinion) and other nation-states. A mix of both deliberate means and parts of society (foreign aid, EG aid to Ethiopia comes with a USA flag)
- Achieved via government-to-government diplomacy and public diplomacy; through the spread of a state’s values and foreign policy goals. Through foreign aid (the case of USAID). Also via the spread of a nation’s popular culture internationally. Like South Korea and KPOP.
- Successful soft power conversion requires having an available and receptive audience and playing your hand well. It is about both the supply of, and demand for, ideas and culture from elsewhere.

Also consider Viet Than Nyuyen – the use of propaganda is also effective (eg Vietnam war). The more naked the propaganda, the less effective. Realists argue that this isn’t really a tool.

What are the three levels of liberal analysis?

Why is liberalism often considered a ‘plastic’ ideology?

It is a very plastic ideology; it can be supportive of free market capitalism (neoliberal economics) or supportive of highly regulated capitalist economic systems (social liberalism). It is associated with the belief that multilateral diplomacy is the only answer to international problems, and it can be associated with supporting “humanitarian intervention” in Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011. Liberalism is so flexible it can associate with two sides of many arguments. The reason for this is the malleability of its core concept, freedom. Political freedom has been interpreted in many different ways.

è Core tenet of liberalism is freedom and individuality.

o   However, freedom is so malleable that it’s difficult to define. It can be associated with libertarianism and social freedoms

What is hegemony?

Hegemonic stability theory
- 1970s: US losing hegemonic status – decline of Pax Americana
- How to guarantee cooperation in absence of hegemony?
- Hegemon not necessary because of inherent benefits of cooperation for rationally calculating states
- International Regimes (ed. Krasner 1983)
- The promise of international institutions

The less states vying for power, the more stability.

What is the core tenet of liberalism?

è Core tenet of liberalism is freedom and individuality.

o   However, freedom is so malleable that it’s difficult to define. It can be associated with libertarianism and social freedoms

-          Concentrated power = abuse -> power must be separated

“Liberalism is more than one thing. On any close examination, it seems to fracture into a range of related but sometimes competing visions.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

According to Lefebvre, what are the principle political institutions and ideas associated with liberalism?

: individual rights, rule of law, separation of powers, judicial review, free and fair elections, free speech and free press, open markets and the welfare state. (Lefebvre)

How does liberalism manifest in IR?

-          Opposes the ‘zero sum’ relations between states that realism proposes

§  Belief in mutual beneficial relations, individual human rights and state sovereignty (negotiating benefits nations, hence they will engage in it rather than go to war)

§  Belief in market capitalism and market regulation

§  Associated with democracy, free speech, negotiation and soft power

§  Support for multilateralism, interdependence and International Organisations

§  Support for freer trade, open communication and globalisation (mutual benefits can be part of international relations)

§  This adds up to three stands of Liberal IR:

o   Liberalism with a focus on economic independence particularly through trade (IPE);

o   Liberalism with a focus on democratic peace;

o   Liberalism with a focus on law and International Organisations (Ikenberry). Liberals don’t see nations in a general state of war and believe security is not always the central concern of individuals or states.

What is the rules based order, or ‘US-led liberal international order?’

-Major IR theorist of the order is John Ikenberry, his key works are After Victory (Princeton, 2001), “The Plot Against American Foreign Policy” and “The end of the Liberal International Order”. Some scholars say this is very American central and hence benefits the USA the most.
1. American created this order through strategic restraint, binding cooperation and enlightened self-interest after WWII
2. System of international institutions, rules and norms created the liberal international order
3. Opposes realist mindset of power politics or rule of authoritarian states
4. Ikenberry claims the order is not perfect but better than any other alternative
5. Critics from the Left have asked when was this order truly “liberal” and when was it truly “international” or truly “rules bases”; Realists have criticized its overpromotion (rhetoric not reality), overreach, and naivety; Conservatives like Trump argue it leads to America being taken advantage of (NATO nations suck from US security but don’t contribute enough – nations take all the benefits of US free trade but protect their own industries with subsidies and etc, with the net benefits trickling out of the US and giving them a negative trade balance).      

Consider the nuclear submarine deal: Australia is willing to pay over 30 billion over a generation to the USA to uphold the US ‘liberal international order’

What are the ‘levels of analysis’

Individual level: scholars who look to the individuals (ontological question, what exists an where can we focus our analysis, eg. Why is Trump slapping tariffs everywhere? What we deem as important).

Domestic: the agents within the state, like economic factors. The arrangements of power and within the state level analysis

International system: the anarchic (by presumption) of sovereign equivalent states and what it targets when it seeks to understand or explain what’s going on in the world.

What is liberalism typically focused on, in terms of levels of analysis?

Liberalism is typically concerned with the domestic, and views it as the shaping factor and motivator of foreign policy. For example, the theory that democratic nations don’t go to war with eachother is a ‘domestic image’ because it’s their internal political system. (known as Domestic Peace Thesis)

What is the primary difference between liberalism and neoliberalism?

-          Neo-liberalism is a development from classic liberalism.

o   Classical liberals inform new ideas and ways of thinking, which leads to ‘neo’ liberals.

§  These people were looking for new ways of liberal thought in politics

§  Ultimately the defining factor that separates the neo from the classical is the shift in image focus – neoliberalism focuses on the top, or rather the international image.

What is the concept of interdepence, according to Keohane and Nye?

Keohane and Nye’s (1977) Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition.
Still embedded in liberal tradition and concerned with “second image” as well as “third image” analysis.

Interdependence: “mutual dependence”; a situation “characterized by reciprocal effects among countries or actors in different countries” (K&N 2012 [1997], p.7)

Interconnectedness: a situation characterised by interactions that “do not have significant costly effects”
(K&N 2012 [1997], p.8)

Ultimately, the thesis states that nations become enmeshed and more enmeshed to each other by creating new binding treaties and will change their functioning behaviour in the IR system.

What does Keohane discuss in his hegemonic stability theory?

Hegemonic stability theory
- 1970s: US losing hegemonic status – decline of Pax Americana
- How to guarantee cooperation in absence of hegemony?
- Hegemon not necessary because of inherent benefits of cooperation for rationally calculating states
- International Regimes (ed. Krasner 1983)
- The promise of international institutions

What are the role of institutions for liberals?

-          Important sites of power and mutually beneficial to states in the international system. Create huge benefits for all involved states and allows them to develop solutions to common problems and reduce the risk of a security dilemma

o   Security dilemma: one state takes action to solve a problem, which is then perceived as a threat by another state which might take action and just lead to retaliatory effects

What is the democratic peace thesis?

• Democratic peace theory is first set out by Michael Doyle (1983, 1986), it challenges the realist claims that peace depends on the systemic balance of power rather than the domestic nature of governments.

• Liberal states ‘claim that governments founded on a respect for individual liberty exercise "restraint" and "peaceful intentions" in their foreign policy’

• ‘Liberal states are different. They are indeed peaceful [among themselves]. They are also prone to make war [with non-liberal states].’

• citizens appreciate that the benefits of trade can be enjoyed only under conditions of peace. Thus the very existence of liberal states, such as the U.S., Japan, and our European allies, makes for peace.’

[Peace among democratic states...but not with autocratic states...]

‘Even though wars often cost more than the economic return they generate, liberal republics also are prepared to protect and promote—sometimes forcibly—democracy, private property, and the rights of individuals overseas against nonrepublics, which, because they do not authentically represent the rights of individuals, have no rights to noninterference.’ [liberal imperialism]

• Liberal Democratic Peace Thesis argues that first, democracies are committed to the
principle of resolving political differences nonviolently, and they adhere to this in their
relations with other democracies no less than in their internal politics. Second, the
publics in democratic societies, who would bear the cost of war, are unwilling to
support such action against another democracy.
• Democratic Peace Thesis: “No one should argue that such wars are impossible; but
preliminary evidence does appear to indicate that there exists a significant
predisposition against warfare between liberal states...a liberal zone of peace, a pacific
union, has been maintained.”
• Why no peace with non-Democratic states...“To simplify greatly, if the explanation for
the separate peace between liberal states is due to their liberalism, it is tempting to
argue that relations between liberal and non-liberal states cannot be peaceful, for the
latter are, in a sense, at war with their own people.”
• US “unwilling to accord non-liberal states the same degree of respect that they give
to other liberal states”

What is Fukuyama’s argument in the end of history and the last man?

Fukuyama makes the argument that the tide of history and world politics is heading towards the end point of history; capitalism and liberalism.

A key proof that the theory didn’t work is China – he missed far too many things in his doomsday thesis.

-          Doyle’s argument is level 2 – democracy

-          Fukuyama’s argument is level 1 – people will become more cooperative, peaceful but dull, coming out of our basic nature and desires (the desire for equality and recognition tha triumphs over others)

-          He argues that this is the old world of politics – more dominant people dominated weaker ones and all nations are moving in an increasingly homogenised society where equality, recognition and social equality is recognised and that liberal democratic capitalism is the only way to have these desires recognised.

 

• Overly Simplistic view of Fukuyama’s arguments: Liberal Democratic Capitalism Triumphed in the Cold War and has become the only economic and political system left to progress towards.
• “His argument is primarily a normative one. At the end of the twentieth century, the combination of liberal democracy and capitalism has proved superior to any alternative political/economic system, and the reason lies in its ability to satisfy the basic drives of human nature. The latter is composed of two fundamental desires. One is the desire for material goods and wealth and the other (more fundamental) desire is for recognition of our worth as human beings by those around us.”
• FF argument: “While economic growth can be promoted under a variety of political regimes, including fascist ones, only liberal democracies can meet the fundamental human need for recognition, political freedom and equality.” Hegelian theory. (Griffiths, et al.)
• History struggle between Megalothymia (action of powerful people) and isothymia (humble demand
for recognition in the form of equality rather than superiority).

• “Liberal democracy is that it represents the end point of the struggle”
• “Liberalism pacifies and de-politicises the aristocratic world of mastery by turning
politics into economics.”
• “Fukuyama argues that while wars will not disappear, the homogenization of values
among the great powers will promote peace among the most powerful states”
• Whig history: “He argues that, in Southern Europe, Latin America, parts of Asia and
Eastern Europe, free-market economics and parliamentary democracy are, with some
important exceptions, becoming the norm. He claims that there were only 13 liberal
democracies in 1940, 37 in 1960 and 62 in 1990. He also traces the decline of war among democratic states over time, arguing that peace between states correlates closely with their internal convergence towards liberal democratic norms.”
• Lament: “Fukuyama is concerned that the subordination of megalothymia to
isothymia may be also the pursuit of equality at the expense of the pursuit of
excellence.” (Griffiths et al). Conservative/republican politics.

-          Fukuyama is actually arguing that liberal democracy is not something to celebrate. He is kind of a conservative deep down and thinks that this society will be dull.

-          He makes the argument when people have dominated eachother and done horrible things for power, the world used to be more interesting and there was more greatness. They strived for something more than the mundane and it’s ultimately an argument against equality. Kind of the argument that sees hierarchy or aristocracy as necessary for greatness/innovation.

What does Joseph Nye develop in his book, soft power?

Develops concept that what world politics has arrived at is a recognition by great powers that they’ll be much more effective if they use soft rather than hard power. IE Nuclear weapons is not very coercive
- Soft power is the use of persuasion, attraction and co-option to win over foreigners (global public opinion) and other nation-states. A mix of both deliberate means and parts of society (foreign aid, EG aid to Ethiopia comes with a USA flag)
- Achieved via government-to-government diplomacy and public diplomacy; through the spread of a state’s values and foreign policy goals. Through foreign aid (the case of USAID). Also via the spread of a nation’s popular culture internationally. Like South Korea and KPOP.
- Successful soft power conversion requires having an available and receptive audience and playing your hand well. It is about both the supply of, and demand for, ideas and culture from elsewhere.

Also consider Viet Than Nyuyen – the use of propaganda is also effective (eg Vietnam war). The more naked the propaganda, the less effective. Realists argue that this isn’t really a tool.