Dr. Russell Williams

Required Reading:
 Cohn, Global Political Economy, Ch. 3.
Class Discussion Reading:
 Susan Strange, “ The Future of the American
Empire, ” Journal of International Affairs, Fall 1988,
Vol. 42 Issue 1, pp. 1-17.
Outline:
1.
Realism – the Basics
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Implications of Realism for State Behavior
Realist Approaches to IPE
Modern Realism and IPE - Hegemonic Stability
Theory
Conclusion
Further Reading

 Dominant approach to the study of IR, but less important in
IPE?
 States are key actor
 E.g. IO ’ s and MNC ’ s often only “ extensions ” of state power
 States are:


“ Unitary ” - Domestic politics and interests less important
“ Rational ” - States pursue predictable strategies based on calculations of self interest



“ Survival ”
“ Power ”

“ Sovereignty ” - Internal and external
Global politics is a “ self help ” system – states must look after themselves


“ Politics ” more important than economics
 Economics only important topic when it relates to state power
 Skepticism about international law, rules, regimes and values
 Rules are for the “ weak ” . . . .
 Skepticism about cooperation
 States only cooperate when then they gain more than others
= little cooperation under normal circumstances?
 Realism “ parsimonious ”
 Has few variables and leads to clear predictions

Realist Theories of International Relations
(IR):
 Avoid overgeneralization – not one single theory i) Classical Realism: (Machiavelli to Morgenthau)


Human nature is bad - hard to trust others
Reject liberal views of human nature
 Therefore, other states are an inherent threat
 E.g. Hobbes ’ “ State of nature ”


Makes a virtue of pursuit of power
Other theories seen as “ idealism ” (E.H.
Carr)

ii) Structural Realism (1970-Present)
 Waltz, Grieco and Mearsheimer
 More scientific - explored where threats came from
 Three “ images ”



Human nature?
Domestic Politics?
International Structure – lack of
Government ?
= International Structure matters!!!
 Global anarchy means states have to be amoral in the pursuit of power
 Only two independent variables:


Anarchy
Distribution of power in the interstate system


Large impact on policymakers in US
More role for economics . . . (E.g. Thucydides)

2)
a) The “ Security Dilemma ” : Security and pursuit of power is a “ zero sum ” game
 Any increase in my security or power means a decrease for others . . .
= Cooperation unlikely b) “ Relative gains ” more important then
“ absolute gains ”
 States only cooperate to pursue relative advantages over others
=E.g. IO ’ s seen as tools of powerful states which hurt the interests of weaker states

c) State policy driven by international structure and position in the global “ balance ” of power
 Powerful states will pursue different strategies from weak – try to ensure the status quo
=E.g. Only economically powerful support free trade
Bottom Line :
 Cooperation difficult
 States unlikely to expose themselves to interdependence

3)
a) Proto-realism and economics:
 Most classical realists integrated international economics in their analysis.
 Economics seen as a source of conflict and war
 E.g. Imperialism
 Economy important to state power
 E.g. Thucydides and the Athenians
 E.g. Machievelli

b) “ Mercantilism ” (16th to 18th Century)
Classical mercantilism:
 States ’ power dependent on “treasure”
 Gold is key to power of emerging sovereign states
 States seek to increase their holdings of gold and silver through:
 Conquest and colonies
 Increase exports, decrease imports
 Problems?

c) Economic Nationalism and Neo
Mercantilism:
 19th and 20th century and beyond . . .
 Industrialization seen as key economic goal
 Necessary to independence (sovereignty)
 Essential to military power (security)
 States need industrial development to survive
( Friedrich List)
 States should:
 Adopt high tariffs (protectionism)
 Encourage development of national industries

Post War Period:
 Liberal free trade collapsed prior to WWII  “ Economic nationalism ”
 Post War Realists believed economic cooperation had to be enforced by dominant states
 Could reduce threats and conflict
 Breton Woods system and free trade possible because:
 US military and economic dominance
 Threat of the Soviet Union = other states had no choice but to cooperate

1970 ’ s - Post War System under stress:
 Economic crises = Post War liberal economic order under threat????
 US decline?
 US economy relatively smaller
 Economic success of Germany and Japan
 OPEC
 Global economic slowdown
 Financial instability = end of dollar standard

“ Détente ” – decline of the cold war
 Result : Realists begin to pay more attention to economics
=Declining economic cooperation in north and era of the “ new protectionism ”

“ Hegemonic Stability Theory (HST) ” :
 1980s realists argue, “ politics ” still dominant over economics
=Economic “ cooperation ” becoming more difficult because of declining US power

“ Hegemony ” (in Realism): Leadership, or dominance, of international system by single state
HST assumes:
 Like liberalism, free trade and globalization good in theory , but unlikely to occur because states mistrust one another under conditions of anarchy
 “ Free trade ” and economic cooperation seen as “ public goods ”
 Non excludible and non rival
= “ Free riders ” = collective action problems

“ Hegemonic Stability Theory (HST) ” :
 Hegemonic state can either:


Provide public goods itself - So dominant economically that it is in its interest to do so . . . .
Force “ free riders ” to “ pay ” for public goods
 Key claim: Hegemony = Liberal economic order
 Problems:
 What is hegemony????


Economic or military?
“ Soft Power ” or ideology?
 How do we know when a state is hegemonic, or the world is uni-polar?

“ Hegemonic Stability Theory (HST) ” :
 Problems:
1) Risk of tautology
 “ Reading off the “ dependent variable ”
2) Empirical record?
 If US had declined by 1980s, why globalisation?
Contemporary Realism:
 Retreat to “ High Politics ” ?


Post 9/11 return to emphasis on security and military conflict
Economic issues have been “ securitized ”

a) Strengths of Realism:

“Parsimony’ (?)
 Focus on distributional outcomes – who gains what . . . .
 Rejection of idealistic prescriptions of how the world should be

b) Weaknesses of Realism:
 Domestic politics?
 Under emphasis of importance of wealth and economics?
 Empirical problems?
 There seems to be a lot more economic cooperation then realists assumed likely . . . .
 Does HST overcome this problem?

 Samuel P. Huntington, “ The Lonely Superpower, ”
Foreign Affairs , 78-2 (March/April 1999), pp. 35-49.
 Example of realist analysis of contemporary US challenges.


Joseph M. Grieco, “ Anarchy and the Limits of
Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal
Institutionalism, ” International Organization , 42-3
(Summer 1988), pp. 485-507.
John J. Mearsheimer, “ The False Promise of
International Institutions, ” International Security, 19-3
(Winter 1994/95), pp. 5-49.
 Examples of realism ’ s critiques of liberal challengers

Unit Three: Thinking Liberally - Diversity and Hegemony in IPE
 Required Reading:
 Cohn, Ch. 4.
 Class Discussion Reading:
 Eric Helleiner, “ Economic Liberalism and Its
Critics: The Past as Prologue?, ” Review of
International Political Economy, 10-4
(November 2003), pp. 685-696.