Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Liberalism Lecture Presentation
Liberalism Lecture Presentation
trade)
reduce states’s fear of each other
West
in the rest of the world, ‘dependence’ of
1. Principles
2. Norms
3. Rules and decision-making procedures
Example: WTO
The Role of International
Institutions and Regimes
Institutions and regimes:
facilitate transparency
reduce transaction costs and the likelihood of cheating (free-
riding)
States will create rules and abide by them, and
maintain them even if that may become costly
Institutions and regimes serve to create new forms of
commonality through the experience of cooperation
This changes participants’ perceptions of themselves
and their interests
Hegemonic Stability Theory
A hegemonic power is a key in establishing most
of the existing regimes (especially in International
Political Economy):
a ‘hegemon’ is a state that has willingness and the
ability to establish rules of action in the international
sphere and enforce them
The US has acted as a hegemon after the Second World War
By 1980s, its hegemonic power has declined
Can cooperation continue after hegemony? From a
liberal perspective, cooperation can continue even in
the absence of a hegemon.
The US Hegemony after the
Second World War
John Ikenberry: The US put certain liberal principles into the
regulatory rules and institutions of international society. Contrary to
realist thinking, the US forsake short-run gains in return for a durable
settlement that benefited all states.
The US advocated a global free trade regime as they belived that free
trade brings benefits to all participants.
The US created important international institutions that constrained its
actions. Ex: Bretton Woods Institutions (IMF, World Bank, WTO) for
regulating economic order and NATO for ensuring security alliance.
Advocates of this liberal hegemonic order note that it was so
successful that allies were more worried about the abondenment of
the US than its domination.
In terms of American hegemony, in the absence of a major war or
global economic collapse, the existing order prevails.
The post-1945 international order has been successful and durable
because US hegemony has a liberal character.
Neo-realist and Neo-liberalist
Debate: ‘Neo-neo synthesis’
Both agree that international system is anarchic. But
neoliberal institutions emphasize that the role of
anarchy can be mitigated through international
institutions and regimes
Neorealists argue that international cooperation is
hard to achive, difficult to maintain, and dependent
on state power. Neo-liberals believe that cooperation
is easy to achieve where states have mutual interest
Neo-liberals think that actors with common interests
try to maximize absolute gains. They ignore relative
gains. But neorealists argue that states are
concerned about relative gains as they do not want
others to gain more.
Gains from cooperation:
relative vs. absolute gains
Neoliberals emphasise absolute gains
as long as a state is getting rewards from
cooperation it does not matter if a neighbouring
state is doing better
Liberal trade theory:
parties’ comparative advantage from trade may be
different;
importantly, they all still gain something
Gains from cooperation:
Neorealists focus on relative gains:
assume that states will be interested not only in how well
they are doing but also how well others are doing
This stems from the focus on the balance of power
States gauge their action based on the relative distribution
of power in the international system
any changes in relative wealth and power will affect state
behaviour and, consequently, the dynamics of cooperation.
The question for realists is how to get cooperation
going:
states would only be prepared to meet the costs of
cooperation if every one of them can reasonably expect to
gain more than any other participating state
‘Neo-neo synthesis’
a rapprochement between neo-realism and neo-
liberalism
‘neo-neo synthesis’
A significant influence of realism, but also an input
from liberal institutionalism:
Ex: Barry Buzan’s concept of ‘mature anarchy’: in parts of
the international system, anarchy is qualitatively different
from how it is envisaged in the pessimistic classical realist
view
this difference has come about as a result of institutionalised
cooperation practices that changed states’ expectations and
perceptions of what is acceptable in international relations
The Differences of Neorealism
and Neoliberalism
Neo-realists argue that anarchy makes states focus on
relative power, security, and survival in a competitive
international system. Neo-liberals are more concerned
with economic welfare and non-military issues like
international environment issues.
Neo-liberals see institutions and regimes as important
forces in international relations. They claim that
institutions and regimes facilitate cooperation. Neo-
realists argue that neo-liberalists exaggerate the
impacts of institutions and regimes on states.
International institutions and regimes cannot mitigate
the constraining effect of anarchy on cooperation