April 14, 2013
Argues liberal analysis cannot claim to
present an alternative theory of
international politics to realism or
institutionalism by merely:
a) Providing an alternative account of state
actions
b) Pointing to problems in realism or
institutionalism, or
c) Providing a comprehensive theory that
does not explain international relations as
well as does realism or institutionalism
Providing an internal analysis and description of
the policymaking process within a state in a way
that appears to account for the action does not
address the realist/institutionalist argument that
it is world structure that accounts for actions:
 Do not hold that nothing takes place within
states, or that the pressures of the world system
do not work themselves out and are expressed
inside state systems, just that we do not need to
understand those activities to explain state
actions
 Argue that systems theory more comprehensive
and more parsimonious

Identification of Problems:
Such identification is useful for either repairing
realism/institutionalism or for spurring the search
for a better theory, but in itself does not constitute a
theory, or a theory that should be used in place of
those established theories.
Must show that can explain what others cannot explain,
that this explanation is universal, systematic and
sufficiently parsimonious (or that universality and
system is impossible) and that it can explain better
than any other alternative.
May be able to establish that theories will always fail in
terms of universality and system, but then cannot
claim to be universal and systematic
Must be a persuasive theory
Must be able to explain important events
and activities and do so in a sufficiently
parsimonious fashion. Cannot claim to
replace a parsimonious, systematic and
universal theory with a long list of causal
factors and claim that this is an
alternative theory.
An argument against realist and neo-realist
arguments that liberal theory cannot generate a
systematic theory because liberal analysis is
 Concerned with particular outcomes n the form
of foreign policy; realism isn’t concerned with
particular foreign policies but with state
activities
 Attributes state activities to state-level factors
 Therefore does not have the type of universal
scope that realist structuralism possesses.
Liberalism is too descriptive and tied too closely
to contingency to produce universally
generalizable results
This argument is false:
 Realism, as it is concerned with outcomes in
the form of state activities, must describe
foreign policies because it is only through
policies that states act
 The fact that liberal analysis is concerned
with state-level variables does not mean
that it can only engage in contextually
limited description. Looking inside states
can provide insights into variation that
occurs in the context of larger and
systematic analysis.
Departures from expected actions:
We can understand state actions by resort to state
level variables in a systematic way by linking
those variables to understanding why it is that
states sometimes do not act in ways that would
be most advantageous to the state as a unit.
1. Theory that maps out how states would be
expected to act and which the usually do act
2. Theory that explains why what happens inside
states accounts for instances when states do not
appear to act rationally as a unified actor.
Institutional Variation:
Understand differences in how states react
to similar situations (including being in
similar structural situations) by
references to differences within states,
particularly by reference to different
types of institutions across states.
Argues that there can be a liberal theory
that is fundamental, should be taken as
existing prior to realism or
institutionalism (i.e., must consult it first,
then turn to others to explain
unexplained variation rather than viceversa) and which is universal and
systematic in the same positivist sense as
is realism and institutionalism.
Levels of analysis:
1. Individuals and groups are the basic
units of political activities. They have
preferences which they seek to attain and
maximize. They compete and cooperate
with one another in there attempts to do
so.
States
State are not actors, but the framework
within which individuals and groups act
to attain their preferences. Individuals
and groups capture the state mechanism
by which states participate in the world
system, but it is not the preferences of the
state or its organizations that are the real
actors, but the individuals and groups
within states that have captured them.
International System
The international system is the arena
within which the groups and individuals
within states interact with other groups
and individuals. Their interests may
overlap (leading to cooperation), clash
(leading to competition and possibly
conflict) or be a mixture (leading to
negotiations and mixtures of cooperation
and conflict).
As a bottom up account, this theory is also
systematic. It escapes the usual realist
charge that liberalism utopian and idealist
by holding that states are able to act on their
preferences. This theory does not make that
assumption; rather, state actions are
conditioned by the fact that state (meaning
those who control them) are acting in an
environment in which decisions and
activities are conditioned by others who are
also attempting to attain and maximize their
preferences.
 Important
to start first with an empirically
convincing account of preferences, and
such an account attaches preferences to
individuals and groups, not to states.
 Such preferences also need not be
understood purely within an internal
domestic context, but also with
references t international factors
generated by the world environment