Institutional liberalism

Last updated

Institutional liberalism (or liberal institutionalism or neoliberalism) is a theory of international relations which holds that international cooperation between states is feasible and sustainable, and that such cooperation can reduce conflict and competition. Neoliberalism is a revised version of liberalism. Alongside neorealism, liberal institutionalism is one of the two most influential contemporary approaches to international relations; the two perspectives have dominated international relations theory since the 1990s. [1]

Contents

In contrast to neorealist scholarship which is skeptical of prospects for sustainable cooperation, neoliberalism argues that cooperation is feasible and sustainable. Neoliberals highlight the role of international institutions and regimes in facilitating cooperation between states. [2] Robert Keohane's 1984 book After Hegemony used insights from the new institutional economics to argue that the international system could remain stable in the absence of a hegemon, thus rebutting hegemonic stability theory. [3] Keohane showed that international cooperation could be sustained through repeated interactions, transparency, and monitoring. [4] [5]

Terminology

Some call the school of thought rational functionalism instead of liberal institutionalism. Liberal institutionalism is also close to—but not synonymous with—regime theory and neoliberalism. [6] [7] Robert Keohane, a political scientist largely responsible for the development of liberal institutionalism, considers his ideas part of institutionalism or rational institutionalism, even though those schools disagree with him on certain points. [8] Keohane dislikes using the adjectives "liberal" or "neoliberal" to describe his work because he also draws from realism, a school of thought that is often contrasted with liberalism. [9] [10]

Liberal institutionalism differs from other common international relations theories like realism in the fact that it does not ignore internal politics. Furthermore, institutional liberalism follows the idea that democracy and capitalism create systems which not only maintain peace but also create beneficial economic opportunities for those involved. Liberal institutionalists believe that democracies naturally lead to peace because the many govern and not the few, and therefore those who decide to go to war will be the many that serve. This is in stark contrast to monarchies and dictatorships that are more warlike due to the fact that the few that do not serve will go to war. Beyond that liberal institutionalists defend capitalism on an international scale because they believe that if two nations are friendly, democratic, and capitalist the two nations will inevitably negotiate mutually beneficial trade deals.

Role of institutions

According to liberal institutionalists, institutions facilitate cooperation by:

Critics of liberal institutionalism argue that institutions do not overcome power politics; rather, institutions reflect power politics. [15] [16] Realist Joseph Grieco argues that liberal institutionalist analyses omit that states pursue relative gains (rather than absolute gains), and that institutionalist analyses that focus on the issue of "cheating" ignore that the relative gains problem is key to why realists believe international cooperation fails. [16] Critics also argue that it is unclear whether institutions have an independent effect on cooperation or whether they reflect that the members are already willing to cooperate and comply. [17] Other critics argue that liberal institutionalist underestimate the enforcement powers of institutions: institutions are often designed to be weak to attract more members, [18] and they tend to be particularly weak on issues related to security rather than economy. [19]

Using logics from Historical institutionalism, John Ikenberry argues that institutions may be highly durable because

See also

Related Research Articles

Neorealism or structural realism is a theory of international relations that emphasizes the role of power politics in international relations, sees competition and conflict as enduring features, and sees limited potential for cooperation. The anarchic state of the international system means that states cannot be certain of other states' intentions and their own security, this prompting them to engage in power politics.

International relations Study of relationships between two or more states

International relations (IR), international affairs (IA) or international studies (IS) is the scientific study of interactions between sovereign states. In a broader sense, it concerns all activities between states—such as war, diplomacy, trade, and foreign policy—and relations with and among other international actors, such as intergovernmental organisations (IGOs), international non-governmental organisations (INGOs), international legal bodies and multinational corporations (MNCs).

International relations theory is the study of international relations (IR) from a theoretical perspective. It seeks to explain causal and constitutive effects in international politics. Ole Holsti describes international relations theories as acting like pairs of coloured sunglasses that allow the wearer to see only salient events relevant to the theory; e.g., an adherent of realism may completely disregard an event that a constructivist might pounce upon as crucial, and vice versa. The three most prominent theories are realism, liberalism and constructivism.

In international relations, the liberal international order describes a set of global, rule-based, structured relationships based on political liberalism, economic liberalism and liberal internationalism since the late 1940s. More specifically, it entails international cooperation through multilateral institutions, and is constituted by human equality, open markets, security cooperation, promotion of liberal democracy, and monetary cooperation. The order was established in the aftermath of World War II, led in large part by the United States.

John Mearsheimer American political scientist

John Joseph Mearsheimer is an American political scientist and international relations scholar, who belongs to the realist school of thought. He is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago. He has been described as the most influential realist of his generation.

Hegemonic stability theory (HST) is a theory of international relations, rooted in research from the fields of political science, economics, and history. HST indicates that the international system is more likely to remain stable when a single state is the dominant world power, or hegemon. Thus, the end of hegemony diminishes the stability of the international system. As evidence for the stability of hegemony, proponents of HST frequently point to the Pax Britannica and Pax Americana, as well as the instability prior to World War I and the instability of the interwar period.

Regime theory is a theory within international relations derived from the liberal tradition that argues that international institutions or regimes affect the behavior of states or other international actors. It assumes that cooperation is possible in the anarchic system of states, as regimes are, by definition, instances of international cooperation.

International security

International security, also called global security, is a term which refers to the measures taken by states and international organizations, such as the United Nations, European Union, and others, to ensure mutual survival and safety. These measures include military action and diplomatic agreements such as treaties and conventions. International and national security are invariably linked. International security is national security or state security in the global arena.

Robert Keohane American academic

Robert Owen Keohane is an American academic working within the fields of International Relations and International Political Economy. Following the publication of his influential book After Hegemony (1984), he has become widely associated with the theory of neoliberal institutionalism, as well as transnational relations and world politics in international relations in the 1970s.

Realism (international relations) Belief that world politics is always and necessarily a field of conflict among actors pursuing power

Realism is one of the dominant schools of thought in international relations theory, theoretically formalising the Realpolitik statesmanship of early modern Europe. Although a highly diverse body of thought, it is unified by the belief that world politics is always and necessarily a field of conflict among actors pursuing power. The theories of realism are contrasted by the cooperative ideals of liberalism.

Polarity in international relations is any of the various ways in which power is distributed within the international system. It describes the nature of the international system at any given period of time. One generally distinguishes three types of systems: unipolarity, bipolarity, and multipolarity for three or more centers of power. The type of system is completely dependent on the distribution of power and influence of states in a region or globally.

In the study of international relations, neoliberalism is a school of thought which holds that international cooperation between states is feasible and sustainable, and that such cooperation can reduce conflict and competition. Neoliberalism is a revised version of liberalism. Alongside neorealism, neoliberalism is one of the two most influential contemporary approaches to international relations; the two perspectives have dominated international relations theory since the 1990s.

In international relations, institutionalism comprises a group of differing theories on international relations (IR). Functionalist and neofunctionalist approaches, regime theory, and state cartel theory have in common their focus on the role of formal and informal rules, norms, practices, and conventions for international politics.

Historical institutionalism (HI) is a new institutionalist social science approach that emphasizes how timing, sequences and path dependence affect institutions, and shape social, political, economic behavior and change. Unlike functionalist theories and some rational choice approaches, historical institutionalism tends to emphasize that many outcomes are possible, small events and flukes can have large consequences, actions are hard to reverse once they take place, and that outcomes may be inefficient. A critical juncture may set in motion events that are hard to reverse, because of issues related to path dependency. Historical institutionalists tend to focus on history to understand why specific events happen.

In international relations, constructivism is a social theory that asserts that significant aspects of international relations are shaped by ideational factors, not simply material factors. The most important ideational factors are those that are collectively held; these collectively held beliefs construct the interests and identities of actors.

Robert Gilpin was an American political scientist. He was Professor of Politics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University where he held the Eisenhower professorship.

In international relations theory, anarchy is the idea that the world lacks any supreme authority or sovereign. In an anarchic state, there is no hierarchically superior, coercive power that can resolve disputes, enforce law, or order the system of international politics. In international relations, anarchy is widely accepted as the starting point for international relations theory.

The English School of international relations theory maintains that there is a 'society of states' at the international level, despite the condition of anarchy. The English school stands for the conviction that ideas, rather than simply material capabilities, shape the conduct of international politics, and therefore deserve analysis and critique. In this sense it is similar to constructivism, though the English School has its roots more in world history, international law and political theory, and is more open to normative approaches than is generally the case with constructivism.

Complex interdependence

Complex interdependence in international relations and international political economy is a concept put forth by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye in the 1970s to describe the emerging nature of the global political economy. The concept entails that relations between states are becoming increasingly deep and complex. These increasingly complex webs of economic interdependence undermine state power and elevate the influence of transnational non-state actors. These complex relationships can be explored through both the liberal and realism lenses and can later explain the debate of power from complex interdependence.

Rational choice is a prominent framework in International Relations scholarship. Rational choice is not a substantive theory of international politics, but rather a methodological approach that focuses on certain types of social explanation for phenomena. In that sense, it is similar to Constructivism, and differs from Liberalism and Realism, which are substantive theories of world politics. Rationalist analyses have been used to substantiate realist theories, as well as liberal theories of international relations.

References

  1. ↑ Powell 1994 , p. 313.
  2. ↑ Axelrod, Robert; Keohane, Robert O. (1985). "Achieving Cooperation under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions". World Politics. 38 (1): 226–254. doi:10.2307/2010357. ISSN   1086-3338.
  3. ↑ Keohane, Robert O. (2020). "Understanding Multilateral Institutions in Easy and Hard Times". Annual Review of Political Science. 23 (1): 1–18. doi: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-050918-042625 . ISSN   1094-2939.
  4. ↑ Keohane, Robert O.; Martin, Lisa L. (1995). "The Promise of Institutionalist Theory". International Security. 20 (1): 39–51. doi:10.2307/2539214. ISSN   0162-2889.
  5. ↑ Norrlof, Carla (2010). America's Global Advantage: US Hegemony and International Cooperation. Cambridge University Press. pp. 30–31. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511676406. ISBN   978-0-521-76543-5.
  6. ↑ David Baldwin (1993) Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate. New York: Columbia University Press, p. 10.
  7. ↑ Beth A. Simmons and Lisa L. Martin (2002) International Organizations and Institutions. In "Handbook of International Relations," edited by Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons, 192–211. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, p. 195.
  8. ↑ Robert Keohane (1993). Institutional Theory and the Realist Challenge after the Cold War. In "Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate," edited by David A. Baldwin, 269–300. New York: Columbia University Press, p. 273.
  9. ↑ Robert Keohane (1984). After Hegemony: Power and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 14.
  10. ↑ Robert Keohane (1993). Institutional Theory and the Realist Challenge after the Cold War. In "Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate," edited by David A. Baldwin, 269–300. New York: Columbia University Press, p. 272.
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Keohane, Robert O.; Martin, Lisa L. (1995). "The Promise of Institutionalist Theory". International Security. 20 (1): 39–51. doi:10.2307/2539214. ISSN   0162-2889.
  12. ↑ Oye, Kenneth A. (1985). "Explaining Cooperation Under Anarchy: Hypotheses and Strategies". World Politics. 38 (1): 1–24. doi:10.2307/2010349. ISSN   1086-3338.
  13. ↑ Fearon, James D. (1998). "Bargaining, Enforcement, and International Cooperation". International Organization. 52 (2): 269–305. doi: 10.1162/002081898753162820 . ISSN   1531-5088.
  14. ↑ Poast, Paul (2012). "Does Issue Linkage Work? Evidence from European Alliance Negotiations, 1860 to 1945". International Organization. 66 (2): 277–310. doi:10.1017/S0020818312000069. ISSN   1531-5088.
  15. ↑ Mearsheimer, John J. (1994). "The False Promise of International Institutions". International Security. 19 (3): 5–49. doi:10.2307/2539078. ISSN   0162-2889.
  16. 1 2 Grieco, Joseph M. (1988). "Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism". International Organization. 42 (3): 485–507. ISSN   0020-8183.
  17. ↑ Von Stein, Jana (2005). "Do Treaties Constrain or Screen? Selection Bias and Treaty Compliance". The American Political Science Review. 99 (4): 611–622. ISSN   0003-0554.
  18. ↑ Downs, George W.; Rocke, David M.; Barsoom, Peter N. (1996). "Is the Good News about Compliance Good News about Cooperation?". International Organization. 50 (3): 379–406. ISSN   0020-8183.
  19. ↑ Lipson, Charles (1984). "International Cooperation in Economic and Security Affairs". World Politics. 37 (1): 1–23. doi:10.2307/2010304. ISSN   1086-3338.
  20. ↑ Ikenberry, G. John (2001). After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order After Major Wars. Princeton University Press. pp. 23, 29–31. ISBN   978-0-691-05091-1.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.