PLSC 102 - Week 3 Slides

Paradigms: Realism and Liberalism + Paradigms: Constructivism

paradigm

a “worldview” that includes agreement on what the basic units are, what the key problems to be explained are, and a set of theories to provide the explanation

research paradigm

an analytical lens, a way of viewing the world and a framework form which to understand the human experience

ideology

the lens through which an individual makes choices and through which they view policy options with regard to whether they align with their values

worldview

serve as teh basis for how states see the political environment around them and their place in it

(CLASSICAL) realism

• states are at the center of the system

• the main goal of the state is to protect itself and ensure its power

• self-interest; states preserve their own safety and security

core claims of realism

units: states are the primary actors within the international system

environment: states operate in an environment of anarchy (manifestation of sovereignty, i.e., the absence of a central ruler) —> “self-help” system

• states act in their own self (national) interest, where interactions are zero-sum (i.e., your gain is my loss, and vice-versa)

• exerting power = offer (positive incentive) or threat (negative incentive)

consequences: low levels of trust and security, less willing to cooperate

zero-sum game

a state seeks to take something (a power or physical resource) away from another state

• all facets of the system are finite

• “your gain is my loss” and vice-versa

NEOrealism (or STRUCTURAL realism)

brings in the structure — anarchy drives state behavior, and the international system is shaped by the distribution of capabilities (e.g. among great powers)

• the system is anarchic

• institutions are structured to maintain the anarchy in the system

unlike classic realists, neorealists contend that it is the structure of the system, rather than the people who lead the state, that drives the system forward

DEFENSIVE realism

the anarchical structure encourages states to maintain moderate reserved policies to attain security (i.e. maintain the status quo)

neorealism that advocates for transparency in order to avoid conflict and maintain the status quo

OFFENSIVE realism

states seek power and influence to achieve security through domination and hegemoney

• overt actions states take in order to grow and protect their power lead to interstate conflict

• states are intrinsically motivated to seek out power and will do so only by establishing a sense of supremacy over other states — particularly with characteristics similar to their own

states use aggressive actions — whether military, economic, social, or political — to secure their place in the system

security dilemma (“spiral model”)

• key tenet of defensive realism

as states implement security policies that aim to either expand or solidify their position in the system, other states may perceive those actions as provocations

e.g. states act in their own interest in a state of anarchy

• state A arms to feel and become more secure

  • state B perceives these actions to be threatening; arms proportionally in response/to preempt the threat

    • and so on…

game theory

theories to explain the steps political actors take to reach their “optimal” outcome

• states weigh the risks and rewards of possible courses of action, seeking the greatest net benefit for their purposes

  • states can only base their strategic decision-making on the information they have (e.g. intelligence information)

based on the idea that all the actions players take in a specific game/situation have a certain probability of being taken

“rational choice theory”

is more a research paradigm than a theoretical paradigm — assumptions about state actors as rational

• event or patterns of behavior —> relevant actors —> choices available to actors —> preferences linked to choices —> condition for which an outcome occurs

liberalism

states use international institutions to impact the system to their benefit

core claims of liberalism

units: states are the primary actors within the international system

• however, states also operate in the best interest of the international system, and within the constraints of international institutions

• liberal institutionalists: international institutions are key in the international system (e.g. to achieve collective security)

complex interdependence: competing interests, but greater incentives to cooperate

complex interdependence

actors use multiple pathways to achieve its goals; all issues are of relatively equal importance across states; conflict is costly, so states are more likely to choose cooperation as a pathway

• networks of actors form to meet common goals

all parts of the international system (states, individuals, international organizations, NGOs, multinational corporations, and non-state actors) have competing interests

collective security

states form alliances to strengthen the security of each member within the alliance

• these arrangements are especially beneficial to states with limited resources to put towards protection

• no one state can act independently in all instances and emerge victorious

constructivism

about the interaction of many different actors within the system, each aiming to hold the others in line

• perceptions and generally accepted consequences that states share about the world are what keeps state actions within the boundaries of appropriate behavior

• the commonly accepted view of the world determines who has the most power to convey norms and to influence changes in norms and ideas about how the international system should work

core claims of constructivism

main argument: the international system is comprised of social relationships —> state identity, ideas, and perceptions govern state interests and interactions

norms maintain the international order

actors have interests, and behave in alignment with their preferences — BUT it is important to understand how actors form their preferences, and in what context (“meaning-making”)

preferences are not static nor inherent / pre-determined

“mutually constitutive relationship”: state perspectives on power —> shapes norms —> constrain and influence behavior —> satte perspectives on power

anarchy IN CONSTRUCTIVISM / as a social construct (Wendt)

the international system is anarchic, but anarchy is what states make of it

• rational choice: treat identities and interests of predetermined

• neorealists and neoliberals: the self-interested state as the starting point

• liberal institutionalists want “more” —> “complex learning”, “changing conceptions of self and interest”, “sociological”

  • process (identity and interest formation) > structure

Wendt’s ideas (1)

anarchy / self-help system is a permissive, indirect cause of conflict

predation can be an efficient, direct cause of conflict through mirroring —> “predator” states engaging in competitive power politics may force other non/less predatory states to fight fire with fire in defense

Wendt’s ideas (2)

1. sovereignty is an institution that is produced and maintained in practice

2. interactions and the process of creating institutions shapes identities and interests over time (i.e. cooperation not just about maximizing utility, but commitment to identity)

3. actors can engage in self-reflection and transform their identities and interests, e.g., when faced with a new social situation that challenges commitments to one’s identity, and when the cost of change is perceived to be less than the rewards

constructivism as a lens: INDIVIDUAL level

state leaders are concerned about their reputations and how other state leaders perceive them

constructivism as a lens: STATE level

domestic policies shape national identity —> shape norms as states emulate policies

constructivism as a lens: SYSTEMIC level

international organizations can establish rules or expectation that can shape collective norms and regulate state behavior