You are on page 1of 7

Liberalization --The process of making policies less constraining of economic activity. 2.

Reduction of tariffs and/or removal of nontariff barriers. --liberty to establish any kind of economic activity at any time any where in the country without anticipating any kind of so called private or public restrictions. In general, liberalization (or liberalisation) refers to a relaxation of previous government restrictions, usually in areas of social or economic policy. In some contexts this process or concept is often, but not always, referred to as deregulation.[1] Liberalization of autocratic regimes may precede democratization (or not, as in the case of the Prague Spring). In the arena of social policy it may refer to a relaxation of laws restricting for example divorce, abortion, homosexuality or drugs. Most often, the term is used to refer to economic liberalization, especially trade liberalization or capital market liberalization. Although economic liberalization is often associated with privatization, the two can be quite separate processes. For example, the European Union has liberalized gas and electricity markets, instituting a system of competition; but some of the leading European energy companies (such as EDF and Vattenfall) remain partially or completely in government ownership. Liberalized and privatized public services may be dominated by just a few big companies particularly in sectors with high capital costs, or high such as water, gas and electricity. In some cases they may remain legal monopoly at least for some part of the market (e.g. small consumers). Liberalization is one of three focal points (the others being privatization and stabilization) of the Washington Consensus's trinity strategy for economies in transition. An example of Liberalization is the "Washington Consensus" which was a set of policies created and used by Argentina There is also a concept of hybrid liberalisation as, for instance, in Ghana where cocoa crop can be sold to a variety of competing private companies, but there is a minimum price for which it can be sold and all exports are controlled by the state.[2] [edit]Liberalization vs Democratization There is a distinct difference between liberalization and democratization, which are often thought to be the same concept. Liberalization can take place without democratization, and deals with a combination of policy and social change specialized to a certain issue such as the liberalization of government-held property for private purchase, whereas democratization is more politically specialized that can arise from a liberalization, but works in a broader level of government.

Realism or political realism prioritizes national interest and security over ideology. . rather than it being dictated to them by some higher controlling entity. There is a general distrust of long-term cooperation or alliance. **Realism in international relations theory is one of the dominant schools of thinking in the international relations discipline. the belief that reality exists independently of observers.   The overriding national interest of each state is its national security and survival.   In pursuit of national security. Scientific realism is the view that the world described by science is the real world and Mathematical realism a branch of philosophy of mathematics.International institutions. and the escalation of conflict. moral concerns and social reconstructions. non-governmental organizations. Political realism is a dominant school of thinking within the international relations discipline that prioritizes national interest and security over ideology.  Sovereign states are the principal actors in the international system and special attention is afforded to large powers as they have the most influence on the international stage. There is no actor above states capable of regulating their interactions.  The interjection of morality and values into international relations causes reckless commitments. Realism in the arts concerns the depiction of subjects as they appear in everyday life.Realism Realism scientific method that theorises a 'problematic' in order to see what is really going on. In this broad sense it is frequently contrasted with Idealism. individuals and other sub-state or transstate actors are viewed as having little independent influence. Relations between states are determined by their levels of power derived primarily from their military and economic capabilities. whether in philosophy itself or in the applied arts and sciences. In ethics moral realism takes the view that there are objective moral values. States are unitary actors each moving towards their own national interest. diplomatic rigidity. Realist or Realistic are terms that describe any manifestation of philosophical realism. Realism. Common assumptions Realist theories tend to uphold that:   The international system is in a constant state of antagonism. states must arrive at relations with other states on their own. This term is often synonymous with power politics. multinational corporations. moral concerns and social reconstructions. states strive to attain as many resources as possible.

This aggressive build-up. which is shared by theorists such as Thomas Hobbes. realists believe that mankind is not inherently benevolent but rather self-centered and competitive. security becomes a zero-sum game where only relative gains can be made. Prominent liberal realists: Neorealism or structural realism Main article: Neorealism (international relations) Neorealism derives from classical realism except that instead of human nature. its primary assumptions have been expressed in earlier writings. This perspective. greater attention is given to the . a state must always be aware of the actions of the states around it and must use a pragmatic approach to resolve problems as they arise. leads to a security dilemma whereby increasing one's security may bring along even greater instability as an opposing power builds up its own arms in response (an arms race).[3] Modern realism began as a serious field of research in the United States during and after World War II. This view contrasts with the approach ofliberalism to international relations.In summary. Liberal realism or the English school or rationalism Main article: English school of international relations theory The English School holds that the international system. forms a "society of states" where common norms and interests allow for more order and stability than what might be expected in a strict realist view. however. Classical realism is defined as the "drive for power and the will to dominate [that are] held to be fundamental aspects of human nature". While states remain the principal actors. This evolution was partly fueled by European war migrants like Hans Morgenthau. Prominent English School writer Hedley Bull's 1977 classic entitled The Anarchical Society is a key statement of this position. its focus is predominantly on the international system. and that territorial expansion is only constrained by opposing power(s). Realists believe that states are inherently aggressive (offensive realism) and/or obsessed with security (defensive realism). while anarchical in structure. views human nature as egocentric (not necessarily selfish) and conflictual unless there exist conditions under which humans may coexist. Realists believe that there are no universal principles with which all states may guide their actions. Thus. Instead. While Realism as a formal discipline in international relations did not arrive until World War II. Classical realism Main article: Classical realism in international relations theory Classical realism states that it is fundamentally the nature of man that pushes states and individuals to act in a way that places interests over ideologies.

Defensive realism Kenneth Waltz . the basic theoretical architecture of Neoclassical Realism is: Distribution of power in the international system (independent variable) >>> Domestic perception of the system and/or domestic incentives (intervening variable) >>> Foreign Policy decision (dependent variable) While neoclassical realism has only been used for theories of foreign policy so far. Its designation of "neoclassical".Neorealism Stephen Walt . Machiavelli. then. To ensure state security.Offensive realism Robert Gilpin . then. Kenneth Waltz).Hegemonic theory Neoclassical realism Neoclassical Realism can be seen as the third generation of realism. Thomas Hobbes).[5] . neorealism differs in the emphasis it places on the permanence of conflict.Defensive realism John Mearsheimer . and the neorealists (esp.Neorealism Robert Jervis . but had nothing to offer about particular states' behavior (or 'theories of foreign policy'). coming after the classical authors of the first wave (Thucydides. Prominent neorealists:       Robert J. Randall Schweller notes that it could be useful to explain certain types of political outcomes as well. Thus.forces above and below the states through levels of analysis or structure-agency debate.[4] The primary motivation underlying the development of neoclassical realism was the fact that neorealism was only useful to explain political outcomes (classified as being 'theories of international politics'). 2) It is a synthesis of the neorealist and the classical realist approaches. The international system is seen as a structure acting on the state with individuals below the level of the state acting as agency on the state as a whole. Art. not refute. by adding domestic intervening variables between systemic incentives and a state's foreign policy decision. The basic approach. has a double meaning: 1) It offers the classics a renaissance. was for these authors to "refine. Gideon Rose is responsible for coining the term in a book review he wrote. Kenneth Waltz". While neorealism shares a focus on the international system with the English School. states must be on constant preparation for conflict through economic and military build-up.

neoliberals argue that its importance and effect has been exaggerated. although both use some common methodological tools.."[2] Both theories. since its main method for testing theories is the process-tracing of case studies. Neoliberalism may have a wider conception of what those interests are. Christensen William Wohlforth Aaron Friedberg Norrin Ripsman [4] Neoliberalism in international relations In the study of international relations.[1] since their approach tends to emphasize the possibility of mutual wins. as both theories are positivist and focus mainly on the state system as the primary unit of analysis. Neoliberalism argues that even in an anarchic system of autonomous rational states. concerned first and foremost with absolute gains rather than relative gains to other nation-states. This theory is often mistaken with neoliberal economic ideology. regimes and institutions.. . they are interested in institutions which can arrange jointly profitable arrangements and compromises. while not denying the anarchic nature of the international system.Neoclassical realism is particularly appealing from a research standpoint because it still retains a lot of the theoretical rigor that Waltz has brought to realism. however. a decentralized system. cooperation can emerge through the building of norms. Neoliberalism is a response to Neorealism. but at the same time can easily incorporate a content-rich analysis. or at least should be. the debate between Neoliberalism and Neorealism is an intra paradigm one. neoliberalism refers to a school of thought which believes that nation-states are. such asgame theory. The neoliberal argument is focused on the neorealists' underestimation of "the varieties of cooperative behavior possible within. Activities of the International System Neoliberal international relations thinkers often employ game theory to explain why states do or do not cooperate. In terms of the scope of international relations theory and foreign interventionism. consider the state and its interests as the central subject of analysis. Prominent neoclassical realists:      Randall Schweller Thomas J.

Keohane and Joseph S. the use of military force is not exercised when complex interdependence prevails.[edit]Development Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye are considered the founders of the neoliberal school of thought. in response to neorealism. Keohane and Nye argue that there is not. [edit]Contentions [edit]Keohane and Nye Robert O. This manifests itself in many forms ranging from informal governmental ties to multinational corporations and organizations. second. multiple channels that connect societies exceeding the conventional Westphalian system of states. It is through these channels that political exchange occurs. force is a usable and effective instrument of policy. Keohane's book After Hegemony is a classic of the genre. ³«complex interdependence sometime comes closer to reality than does realism. in fact. the role of the military in resolving disputes is negated. interstate relations are those channels assumed by realists. ³the creators [of the system] become the creatures of the market that their activity gave rise to. Charles P. according to Lebow. However. a hierarchy among issues. Keohane and Nye cover the three assumptions in realist thought: First." [edit]Lebow Richard Ned Lebow states that the failure of neorealism lies in its ³institutionalist´ ontology. the assumption that there is a hierarchy in international politics. and finally.´ This critical failure. transgovernmental relations occur when one relaxes the realist assumption that states act coherently as units. as realistically there is no clear agenda in interstate relations. not through the limited interstate channel as championed by realists. develop an opposing theory they dub "Complex interdependence. and others. whereas the neorealist thinker Kenneth Waltz states. Nye. Secondly. Kindleberger. states are coherent units and are the dominant actors in international relations.[4] The heart of Keohane and Nye¶s argument is that in international politics there are." Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye explain. The idea is developed that between countries in which a complex interdependence exists. transnational applies when one removes the assumption that states act coherently. Keohane and Nye go on to state that the role of the military is in fact important in that "alliance¶s political and military relations with a rival bloc. Another major influence is thehegemonic stability theory of Stephen Krasner. Finally. in fact. The line between domestic and foreign policy becomes blurred in this case. is due to the realists¶ inability ³to . but that there are a multitude of different agendas that come to the forefront. meaning that not only is the martial arm of foreign policy not the supreme tool by which to carry out a state's agenda. Here they define their terminology.´[3] In explaining this.

³institutions have only marginal effects«[which] leaves [neo-realism] without a plausible account of the investments that states have made in such international institutions as the EU. ³institutions cannot get states to stop behaving as short-term power maximizers. According to Mearsheimer. is concerned with µinner-directed¶ institutions. the assumption that states do not adapt and will respond similarly to similar constraints and opportunities. or coalition of states."[6] Keohane and Lisa L. [5] . which were affected by Britain¶s linking of issues in context of the EC.´[8] This idea is in keeping with the notion of complex interdependence. a classical London School of Economics liberal. Mearsheimer¶s ³The False Promise of International Institutions.´[9] Mearsheimer. effectively creating an ad hoc alliance which effected change in its member states. and regional trading organizations.[10] Mearsheimer attacks Martin¶s research on the EC. The central point in Keohane and Martin¶s idea is that neo-realism insists that. Keohane and Martin argue that the fact that international institutions are created in response to state interests. which the alliance aims to deter.escape from the predicament of anarchy. or defeat in war. which he states. coerce. ³seek to cause peace by influencing the behavior of the member states. [edit]Mearsheimer Norman Angell. He concedes this point to Keohane and Martin.´ In doing so he dismisses Keohane and Martin¶s NATO argument in favor of the example of the European Community (EC) and the International Energy Agency.´ where Mearsheimer purports that. however.´ Or rather. the NATO argument is an alliance and is interested in ³an outside state. GATT. that the real empirical question is ³knowing how to distinguish the effects of underlying conditions from those of the institutions themselves. NATO. had held: "We cannot ensure the stability of the present system by the political or military preponderance of our nation or alliance by imposing its will on a rival. Mearsheimer purports that the United States was not a member of the EC and yet the US and Britain managed to cooperate on sanctions. Martin expound upon these ideas in the mid 1990s as a response to John J.´ Mearsheimer reasons that since NATO is an alliance it has special concerns.´[7] In fact Mearsheimer¶s article is a direct response to the liberal-institutionalist movement created in response to neo-realism. Moreover. particularly her argument on Argentine sanctions by Britain during the Falklands war.