International Relations Theory and Exam Review Notes

As capitalism matures and domestic problems grow, it expands internationally, leading to similar tensions globally.
The world is divided into two main categories:
- Wealthy Core Nations: Early industrializing countries that first embraced capitalism.
- Peripheral Developing Countries: Nations that supply raw materials and are less developed.
The most powerful nations define the principles of the international economic system (e.g., Great Britain and the United States promoting Adam Smith's and David Ricardo's free markets and free trade).
This is rooted in the concept of comparative advantage, where nations specialize in producing what they do best, benefiting all participants.

Marxists argue that "free trade" is not "fair trade."
David Ricardo's idea of comparative advantage suggests nations should specialize in their best products.
Marxist counter-argument: Rich countries are industrialized, technologically advanced, and produce high-value, high-profit goods. Developing countries, lacking this development, primarily provide raw materials, thus perpetually serving the core nations.
Free trade, in this context, hinders the development of peripheral nations by keeping them in a raw material supplier role, preventing industrialization and modernization. Many developing countries adopted this perspective in the post-WWII era.

Realist perspective: Wars are caused by anarchy, power struggles, and shifts in the balance of power in the international system.
Marxist/Leninist perspective: Wars are driven by economic factors, such as colonialism and imperialism, for access to resources and markets.
Example: One interpretation of World War II in the Pacific suggests the conflict between the United States and Japan was over control of China, viewed as a significant economic prize.

Students were asked to consider two scenarios from an American perspective, involving the US and another country (China, then Canada, then India):
- Scenario 1: The US economy grows by 2\% annually, while the other country grows by 23\% (or 3\% with Canada/India). The US maintains its dominant position.
- Scenario 2: The US economy grows by 10\% annually, while the other country grows by 25\% (or 25\% with Canada/India). The US potentially loses its dominant global position.
Implication of high growth (Scenario 2): Annual growth of 10\% is substantial; wealth could double in approximately 7 years, potentially funding universal college education, medical care, and other benefits.

Consistent Choice: Scenario 1 for all partner countries (China, Canada, India).
Rationale: Realists prioritize power, security, and maintaining dominance in an anarchical international system. Relative power is paramount, even if it means lower overall economic growth. The political characteristics of the other nation-state do not matter; the anarchical structure of the system dictates the focus on self-help and security. Historical examples include balance of power conflicts between border nations like France and Germany.

Consistent Choice: Scenario 2 for all partner countries (China, Canada, India).
Rationale: Economic liberals prioritize overall economic growth and wealth generation for all states. They believe that greater wealth globally leads to less conflict, as economic interdependence creates shared interests and raises the costs of war. Through trade, investment, and international institutions, states can achieve absolute gains, where everyone benefits, rather than focusing solely on relative gains or power balances. Collaboration through organizations like the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) facilitates global economic prosperity, leading to a more peaceful and stable international system. They emphasize the potential for cooperation and the idea that open markets and free trade benefit all participants by fostering interdependence and mutual understanding, reducing incentives for interstate conflict and promoting collective well-being.