theories condensed version

REALISM

  • instead of describing the desired world, realism tries to explain the world as it is

    • therefore, realism can be seen as ignoring the moral/ethical complications of a certain event

  • it also explains power politics largely in terms of states’ hard power capabilities

    • states are locked in competition with each other - cuz each state aims to protect its national security (both economic & military) against threats from other states

  • 2 main assumptions

    • 1) Humans, by their nature, are selfish & competitive

    • 2) States operate in an anarchic system

      • there’s no higher governing body to enforce laws & order on states

  • realists don’t focus much on actions at the sub - state level

  • 2 main strands of realism: Classical Realism & Structural Realism

Classical Realism

  • classical realists focus more on human nature

    • believe that the actions taken by a state are due to the human selfishness & competitiveness

  • Thomas Hobbes supports Nicolo Machiavelli’s view, and further adds that the desire for power is amongst the strongest of human desires

    • the only solution to the ongoing conflicts between members of society is the creation of a sovereign state that cannot be challenged

  • state egoism may be caused by the inherent egoism that’s part of human nature

    • may lead to an international system that’s characterised by rivalry & the desire of each state to prioritize its own national interest over other things

Structural realism

  • focuses on how the nature of the international system/the global political structure is responsible for state’s actions

  • focuses more on the anarchic nature of the international system

  • key assumptions

    • 1) States operate in an anarchic system (there’s no higher authority to call on if a state needs help or protection, but there’s also no higher authority to enforce order

    • 2) all states posses at least some form of military capability (since all states posses some form of military capability, they are all capable of harming their neighbors [but in varying degrees on damage)

    • 3) states can never know the intentions of other states (it’s impossible to know the future plans or intentions of another country)

    • 4) primary goal of all states = survival (survival of state is the foundation of other goals the state may have)

    • 5) states are rational actors (states carry out decisions because they believe it is the smartest choice to benefit them)

offensive structural realists - states should aim to maximise their whenever possible, or should achieve an appropriate amount of power

defensive structural realists - once a state accumulates a certain amount of power, gaining too much power can have negative consequences. there are 3 main reasons, which can be found in ‘theories’ document

  • 3 main reasons defensive realists believe states should show restraint

    • 1) other states will ‘balance’ against the state with excessive power

      • this ‘balancing’ from other states is done through various strategies, like alliances

      • but the original state (the one with too much power i think) will have less power than before

    • 2) offense/defense balance prefers/favours defending rather than attacking state

      • any state that gains too much power is likely to fight a series of losing wars

      • states will understand that offense is a futile strategy & will redirect their concentration on maintaining their current position of power

    • 3) costs of conquest

      • even though conquest may be possible, the costs of conquering another state will likely outweigh any benefits

      • one reason is nationalism - it’s either impossible or very difficult for a conqueror to fully subdue the conquered

      • the ideology of nationalism is all about self - determination, which virtually guarantees that occupied populations will rise up against the occupier

LIBERALISM

  • focuses on the way in which we live in a world characterised by interdependence between states

    • view us as living in an era of great change occurring a fast pace

  • domino effect - what happens in one state can affect another state

  • believe the most effective & safest ways of using power in global politics, is through soft power, cooperation & an international order based on rules (rules based international order)

Complex interdependence (which is a theory which emphasizes the complex ways in which as a result of growing ties, actors become mutually dependent, which leads to them being vulnerable to each other’s actions & sensitive to each other’s needs) is built of off 3 main elements

  • multiple channels

    • argues that non - state actors play an important role in global politics (are in a sense underappreciated)

    • substate actors are also important in cultivating & maintaining multiple channels

    • so by focusing on only the state - to - state relations, we are ignoring an important aspect of global politics, as states aren’t the only actors whose actions are driven by interest

  • multiple issues

    • issues that appear to be solely domestic actually have an international dimension

    • economic, ideological, religious & cultural issues are all components of the contemporary global agenda

    • due to connections between various states, domestic policy can be foreign policy

  • decline in the effectiveness of military power

    • increase in interdependence = decline in military power

    • one reason: many issues don’t require military power

    • another reason: states have to consider the implications their actions will have on other states & non - state actors

according to Liberalism, states cooperate because its in their own interest to do so (connects to Classical realism [i think] because a state’s action to work with other states is due to their selfishness, because working together will help to accomplish bigger things)


NEOLIBERALISM

  • best way for a country to develop = minimal state intervention

    • neoliberalists advocate for the least amount of state involvement

    • promote privatisation as one factor in an effective pathway to development

  • its counterproductive for a state to construct barriers to imports

  • also includes removing the social net - so of course puts ppl at a disadvantage, at an even greater disadvantage

  • its more logical for states to specialize in producing the goods they are able to, at a low coast

The Washington Consensus

  • the aim of this set of policies was to promote economic development in Latin American countries, so that the debt crisis would be relieved

Structural Adjustment Programme

  • a set of policies that countries had to enact (make law) in order to gain access to funding from the World Bank

  • SAD has been criticized - ineffective in reducing poverty & creates more dependency