Liberalism (Pluralism)


From a liberal perspective, international
relations is not only about state-state
relations; it is about transnational relations
that means relations between people, groups
and organizations from different countries
Due to this emphasis on society, state and
many different actors, liberalism is also called
pluralism
Basic Concepts and Issues in
Liberal Theory:


Liberals focus on norms, regimes, economic
interdependence, international organisations
no distinction between



‘high’ politics (high-level relations between states)
and
‘low’ politics (internal socio-economic issues)
İssues of terrorism, drug trafficking, human
rights, environment, technology and finance
are as important as security issues
Evolution of Liberalism
- Enlightenment period liberalism (liberal
universalism)
- Idealism that emerged after First World
War
- Institutional Liberalism
Liberalism: Key Assumptions






Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, “Power and Interdependence:
World Politics in Transition” (1977)
States are not the only important actors in world
politics. Non-state actors are important entities in IR
that cannot be ignored.
International Organizations (IOs) can be independent
actors in their own right.
The organization’s own decision makers, bureaucrats have
considerable influence in agenda setting, namely determining
which issues are most important politically.
IOs are more than simply arenas within which sovereign states
compete.
Moreover, Multinational Corporations like General Motors,
DaimlerChrysler, Toyota Motor, Ford Motor or Phillips cannot be
ignored as well in a highly interdependent world economy.
Second Assumption of
Liberalism


For liberals, the state is not a unitary actor. State is
composed of individual bureaucracies, interest groups, and
individuals that attempt to influence foreign policy. There
may be competition, coalition, conflict, compromise
among these actors.
To speak of a foreign policy of Turkey, US or UK means
that foreign policy decisions were determined by
competition among a number of actors. Foreign policy
preferences reflect the multiple actors within the state.
Liberals break the state into various components, they
reject the notion of the state as an integrated entity.
Second Assumption of
Liberalism




Domestic actors influence how states define their foreign
policy interests
Societal actors compete with each other for access to and
influence upon decision-makers
National decision-makers are responsive to interest group
lobbying
Both governmental and non governmental actors may take
actions that are contrary to the preferences of central state
authorities. For liberals such an interaction not only
happens within the state but across national borders, so it
has a transnational dimension.
Third Assumption of Liberalism


States may not be rational actors: A particular
policy may be suggested just because it
serves bureaucratic power or prestige of
certain groups.
Moreover, misperception of decision makers
as a result of incomplete information, bias,
and uncertainty is also a key focus of
attention for liberal scholars.
Fourth Assumption of
Liberalism



They reject the idea that the agenda of
international politics is dominated primarily by
military-security issues.
For them the agenda of international politics
is extensive and diversified and economic and
social issues are often at the forefront of
foreign policy debates.
The problems of energy, natural resources,
environment, pollution are as important as
questions of security and territorial
competition.
Fifth Assumption of Liberalism


There are important linkages between
domestic structures and processes and
international politics
The international system is not completely
anarchic. Some domains of international
relations are characterized by “international
regimes”. So, cooperation between states can
be achieved.
Basic Liberal Values




Liberals focus on values of order, liberty, justice, and
toleration into international relations. All individuals
are juridically equal and posses basic rights to
education, access to a free press, and religious
toleration.Domestic and international institutions are
required to protect these values.
State posseses only the authority given to it by the
people
All individuals have the right to own property
Most effective economic exchange system is market
economy. Economy should not be subordinated to
bureaucratic control
Peaceful World Order

Rational individual,
Republican/democratic state,
commercial interdependence, universal
rights, international law, international
institutions
peaceful world order
Historical Overview



Liberal perspective is based on the ideas
developed during the Enligtenment period.
The development of the idea of Republican
state and free trade led to the emergence of
liberal perspective in IR.
Cosmopolitan morality could be achieved
through the exercise of reason and through
the creation of democratic states.
Liberal Universalism of the
Enligtenment Period



The focus is on how the cooperation among
Republican states, free trade and mutual
interdependence lead to perpetual peace and
international harmony
Focus on the individual, rationality,
progressive history and positivist science
Bourgeoisie emerged as a new class and
supported the ideas of the Enligtenment such
as the autonomy of the individual, equality,
tolerance, freedom and property
Reorganizing Domestic Politics




Liberals opposed to the monarchies, conquest of new territories,
balance of power, formation of alliances, secret diplomacy, and
imperialism .
Establishment of Republican states instead of monarchies
Rational individual and rational morality: each person belives
that he has to work hard for creating himself a better future.
This benefits whole society.He is aware of his moral
responsbilities and duties, this creates a harmonious society.
Individuals focus on pursuing their own interest, but this does
not create conflict. Rationality puts freedom and justice to the
heart of international relations.
It is believed that states that treat their citizens morally and
enable them to participate to the political process do not behave
agressively.
Focus on the Individual


John Locke (1632-1704) emphasizes that all
individuals have rights such as freedom,
equality, property, and right for living. A state
is responsible for protecting these rights.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) in his work
“Perpetual Peace”: A peace federation based
on the rational individual and Republican
government can be created.
Immanuel Kant and Perpetual
Peace

1.
2.
3.
Peace can be achieved through 3 steps:
Human rationality: rational individuals having moral values
create peaceful society thus a peaceful world.
Constitution Based Republican state: as all individuals are
rational, they know that they will bear the costs of a war. In a
republican state they can prevent their leaders from going to
war. The rule of law, seperation of legislation, executive, and
judiciary.Respecting each other’s rights and freedom
Spreading human rationality, free trade and republicanism
worldwide: perpetual peace
The Importance of Free Trade




Free trade brings people from different race,
religion and language together.
Protectionist economic policies lead to
insecurity and also low level of interaction
among states
Borders that seperate states should be
transcended and common values should
be created. Free trade is essential in
creating these common values
It is believed that market societies are
against war.
The Importance of Free Trade




For creating wealth for the world, there should be
increase in production. This will satisfy human needs
and prevent evil intentions of individuals.
International distribution of wealth can be equal if
individuals freely pursue their interests all around the
world.
The increase in production and equal distribution of
wealth depend on a free international trade.
If all states try to maximize their economic
interests, then whole world will benefit from it.
Global wealth will lead to global peace.
Idealism




Unlike the classical liberalism which argues that if
individuals pursue their self-interests, societal harmony
will be achieved, idealism argues that state intervention is
necessary for creating societal harmony.
States must be part of an international organization and be
subject to its rules and norms.
Idealism has an active and regulatory character. It suggests
that wars like first world war should not be experienced
again. So, idealism suggests that international peace should
be achieved through cooperation between democratic
states and the commonsense of the people.
The League of Nations was founded in 1920 to maintain
peace and stability, but its collective security system failed
to solve the economic and political crises of the 1930s.
Woodrow Wilson’s Principles






Establishment of an international organization
The right to determine each nation’s own
destinty
Mutual respect for each state’s independence
Resolution of problems through diplomacy
Removal of customs tariffs and strengthening
mutual trade between states
Spreading economic liberalization
How to Avoid War?




The spread of economic relations between states
makes war costly. Because states have common
interests due to mutual economic interdependence.
In order not to lose their interests, states avoid from
war.
Establishment of democratic states.
Democracy should be preferred instead of monarchy,
free trade instead of protectionism, common security
instead of balance of power
Focus on individual rights and economic welfare
avoids war. Rational individuals create harmonious
societies which in turn create international peace.
Liberal Theory After the
Second World War

In the post-1945 period, liberals turned
to international institutions to carry out
a number of functions the state could
not perform.
Karl Deutsch and his Security
Community


Karl Deutsch (1912-1992) was a leading
figure in the study of transnational relations
in the 1950s.
He argues that a high degree of transnational
ties between societies leads to peaceful
relations. By this way security community can
be created. He argues that security
community could be created among Western
countries through NATO.
David Mitrany and Functionalist
Theory of Integration



David Mitrany (1888-1975) argued that greater
transnational interdependence between countries can
lead to peace.
He argued that cooperation should be arranged by
technical experts, not by politicians. The experts can
find better solutions to common problems in areas
such as communication, finance, transport...
When people realize that they benefit from
cooperation, the cooperation that starts in functional
areas can expand to other areas. Economic
interdependence can lead to political integration and
peace.
Rise of Liberal Perspective
(pluralism)



By the early 1970s, liberalism (pluralism) had mounted a significant
challenge to realism. It focused on new actors (multinational
corporations, non governmental organizations) and new patterns of
interaction (interdependence, integration).Key factors included:
The decline of US economic hegemony.
The rise in the number and influence of nonstate actors.


Increased levels of international cooperation in economics, cultural
affairs and science.


the emergence of MNCs
emergence of the European supranationalism
The evolution of communication and transportation technologies
increased the level of interdependence between states. Thus,
transnational actors are important, and welfare is becoming more
important than security for states. That means a world of more
cooperative international relations.
Complex Interdependence and
Transnationalism:







Keohane and Nye, Power and Interdependence (1977): the
world had become more pluralistic in terms of actors involved
and these actors became more dependent on each other.
4 basic characteristic of this pluralistic world:
- increasaing linkages between states and non-state actors
- no distinction between high and low politics: Mutual interests
extend beyond trade and development issues. Due to the
globalization of security concerns like terrorism, drug trufficking
and diseas like AIDS, any country’s security cannot be
addressed unilaterally.
- multiple channels for integration among actors across national
boundaries
- decline of the importance of military force. Force will not be of
primary importance
Broad view of power and its sources: economic, social etc.
The Role of Interdependence



Throughout history states sought power by means of
military force and territorial expansion, but for
industrialized countries economic development and
foreign trade are more important and less costly for
achieving prosperity
Industrialized counties like Japan and Germany
refrained from high military expenditure and
economic self sufficiency, instead they focused on
trade and increased interdependence
Liberals argue that high division of labor in
international economy increases interdependence
between states and reduces conflicts between states
James N. Rosenau and
transnational relations



Rosenau argues that individual transactions have
important implications for global affairs.Due to better
education and access to means of communication,
foreign travel, migration individuals extended their
activities
For him, state’s capacity for control and regulation is
decreasing in a complex world. (environmental
pollution, drug trade, currency crises, and terrorism)
He sees a fundamental transformation in the
international system: state-centric, anarchic system
has not disappeared, but a new multi-centric world
has emerged.
‘Liberal Institutionalism’:


Institutions are enduring sets of norms, rules and
expected patterns of behaviour
Gains from institutions:
 facilitate activities that are beneficial to states
(e.g. trade)
 reduce states’s fear of each other
 provide a flow of information and opportunities to
negotiate between states, facilitate the risks of
tricky negotiations (e.g. over arms control)
 enhance the ability of governments to monitor
others’ compliance and implementing their
commitments, thus the ability to make
commitments credible
Democratic Peace Theory

Bruce Russet and Michael Doyle reject that war is caused by bad
people (human nature) or the absence of a central authority (anarchy).
For them, regime-type is important. Democracies do not fight each
other.
Following Immanuel Kant, Michael Doyle highlights that citizens in
general will oppose wars because:
- the existence of domestic political cultures based on peaceful conflict
resolution
- democratic governments are controlled by their citizens, who will
oppose war because they do not want to bear the costs of wars.
Governments, being rational actors, avoid starting wars in order to
maximise their chances of success on election day
•
Germany’s opposition to the war in Iraq might be explained in
terms of Chancellor Schroder’s opportunistic reading of domestic
public opinion. The stance of Germany public opinion is consistent
with the belief that citizens are generally war-averse.
Democratic Peace Theory
- democracies hold common moral values which
create a pacific union. Peaceful way of solving
conflicts are seen as morally superior to violent
behavior, and this attitude is transferred to
international relations.
- freedom of expression and free communication
promote mutual understanding internationally and
help to ensure that political leaders will act in
accordance with their citizens’s views
- mutual gain from economic cooperation and
interdependence also contribute to peace
Challenges to Liberal
Perspective (pluralism)


Neorealists criticize liberals for exaggerating the role
of institutions. Neo-realists argue that states
cooperate through institutions but they do it for their
own interest, and the strong prevail in international
relations. Institutions are subject to states
Neorealist also challenge liberal argument that
democratic states do not fight each other. Neorealists
argue that today’s friend can turn out to be
tomorrow’s enemy, whether they are a democracy or
not. For neorealists, as long as there is anarchy, there
is no escape from self-help and security dilemma.
Waltz’s response to pluralism

Serious challenge from realism came in 1979
with Kenneth Waltz’s “Theory of International
Politics”

International system is still anarchical,
nothing had changed with the advent of
interdependence. In domestic affairs, there is
authority, administration and law, while
international politics is characterized by
power struggle.
Critique from Marxist Scholars

Marxist scholars criticize liberals for modelling
a rich man’s world
 ‘interdependence’ limited to the developed
West
 in the rest of the world, ‘dependence’ of
one group of countries upon another
reflected global imbalances in wealth and
power
Neoliberal (Institutionalism)



Pluralists of 1970s  ‘neo-liberal institutionalists’ in
the 1980-90s
They try to explain durability of institutions despite
change in the distribution of power in the
international system
Approximated neo-realism by accepting two of its
fundamental principles:



the anarchic structure of the international system
States are rational actors
But kept a ‘liberal’ focus : the possibilities for interstate cooperation under anarchy
Core assumptions of NeoLiberal Institutionalism




States are key actors, but not the only significant
actors. States are rational, always seeking to
maximize their interests in all issue-areas.
In a competitive environment, states seek to
maximize absolute gains through cooperation. As
rational actors, states prefer cooperation.They are
not concerned with the relative gains of others.
The greatest obstacle to cooperation is noncompliance and cheating by states.
If institutions are seen mutually beneficial by states,
then they will shift their loyalties to these institutions.
Mutual Interests

Neo-liberal institutional perspective is more
relevant in issue areas where states have
mutual interests like trade. Most states
believe that all states will benefit from an
open trade system. However, cooperation in
military or national security areas, where
someone’s gain is perceived as someone
else’s loss (zero-sum perspective) may be
more difficult to achieve.
Innovations of neoliberalism:

Cooperation in the context of anarchy
will be fragile:


‘free-rider’ states (those that share benefits
of cooperation without contributing to its
costs) undermine the legitimacy of
cooperation for those who do meet the
costs
Focus on international institutions
Neo-liberal
Institutionalists




Neoliberalism explains the durability of institutions despite
significant changes in the international system.
Institutions exert a causal force on international relations,
shaping state preferences and locking them into cooperative
arrangements.
Neo-liberal institutionalists see institutions as the
mediator and the means to achieve cooperation in the
international system. Regimes and institutions govern a
competitive and anarchic international system and they
encourage multilateralism and cooperation for securing
national interests.
They focus on the creation and maintenance of institutions
associated with managing the globalization process.
International Regime









If states are bad, create “regimes”: A set of formal and informal
rules, or norms that constrain the behavior of units in the
international system and regulate their relations
Regimes help to facilitate cooperation.
Behavior is limited by the norms and rules of the regime.
Regimes increase the stability and predictability of behaviour of
states under anarchy
Regimes consist 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 (freeriding)
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:


This stems from the focus on the balance of power



assume that states will be interested not only in how well
they are doing but also how well others are doing
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 neoliberalism
‘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 nonmilitary 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. Neorealists 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