Owen: How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace
Layne: Kant or Can't: The Myth of the Democratic Peace
Waltz: Structural Realism After the Cold War
Part I:Summary
The main point of the Layne article is that democratic peace theory (DPT) establishes a correlation between peace and democracies, not a causal link between peace and democracies (p. 209) and that realism is a better predictor of states’ actions (p.178). The DPT has two possible causal links: the absence of war between democracies is attributable to institutions and the absence of was between democracies is because of democratic norms and culture (p. 177). The author states that it is not the institutional attributes that enable democracies to behave peacefully towards other democracies, so it must be the norms that are the causal logic in DPT (p.183). After four case studies (the most recent being 1923 (p.186)) the conclusion is that DPT establishes a correlation between democracies and peace, but not a causal link (p.209). Instead, in all four instances, realist factors provided the reason why the democracies did not go to war (p.209). Showing that DPT is not valid matters in order to show policy makers that they should not focus on the implications of DPT (spreading democracy because democracies don’t make war on each other), but rather on security (realist) concerns (p.217).
The Waltz article’s main point was that structural realism is still the dominant theory because there has been no change in the system that would render the theory obsolete (p.30). Waltz labels the democratic peace theory a “fact” because if democracies don’t fight with other democracies, then that is not an explanation but a statement of fact that needs an explanation (p.31). According to Waltz, international relations theory deals with the system (p. 34) and that no matter how wide spread democracy might be, that is a unit level change (p. 34) and so does not alter the system or shape the system (p. 34, 35, 39). Instead Waltz states that the power of the state is still strong (p. 42) and that the presences of international institutions (p. 44) and interdependence (p. 39) (which arise in times of peace – brought on by democracy says DPT believers (p.38-39)) are simply methods that a state uses to protect itself in the anarchic world and gain power. Countries have always competed for wealth and security and this competition has often led to conflict (p. 59), and will lead to conflict so long as states are in a self-help world (p.65). Until the self-help, anarchic, world has transformed into something else, the structure of the system will remain the same, and so realism is the dominant theory (p. 67).
The Owen article’s main point is that although the institutional (structural) factors and normative factors of DPT don’t explain democratic peace individually, when those two variables are put together they do explain the democratic peace (p.142). He also believes that perception is important because if a state doesn’t perceive another state as liberal (democratic) they the first state will not treat the second state in the same way the first state would treat another liberal state (p. 146). Based on the definition of a liberal democracy as a state that is dominated by liberal norms, and structure (p.152), then a liberal state will avoid war with another state that it believes to be liberal (p.152). In order to demonstrate his idea, Owen uses four case studies, the latest of which is in 1896 (p.154). Owen then concludes, after studying these cases, that the causal mechanism linking liberal structures and norms to peace is the liberal ideas that create the structures and norms in a liberal democracy (p.173).
Part II: Analysis
The Layne article is short-sighted in that the author seems to believe that it has to be either democratic norms or democratic structure that is the causal link between democracies and peace (p. 209). Layne does not consider the position that the two variables might work in tandem. Additionally, he seems to add an element into the DPT: that there has to be an absence of military threats from one democracy to another (p. 184). This seems to be stretching the DPT to a point so that no case-study or situation could fit under the umbrella. The DPT states that democracies do not make war on other democracies (p.177), not that democracies don’t threaten other democracies with military power. This seems to be an addition to DPT that Layne makes, without any good analytical basis for the addition; simply that he thinks the absence of war “sets the threshold of proof too low” (p.185). Lastly, he claims to have four “modern” case-studies, but the most current study is from 1923 (p.186), which isn’t modern at all.
The Waltz article simply seems to reiterate points that we have heard from Waltz before, namely: anarchy, anarchy and balancing. Waltz dismisses nuclear weapons as a unit level concern (p.30), but then contradicts himself when he uses nuclear weapons in his description of what should happen with balancing (p.56). The structure of this article was very confusing to me, because it seemed that he was trying to discredit DPT by saying that DPT states a fact, not a theory (p. 31) and that realism still holds sway because the system (anarchy) hasn’t changed (p. 67). However, he launches into balancing explanations that seem to have nothing to do with DPT or liberalism, and are simply Waltz expounding on the virtues of his definition of realism. Overall, I was confused by this article. Waltz tries to make another case for realism being relevant, but in doing so dismisses all domestic factors that other theories rely on simply by saying: they are changes in the unit level, not the structural level (p. 30). Once again, Waltz seems to lack certain logic to his thoughts.
The Owen article ignores instances later than 1920’s because bipolarity and nuclear weapons change the picture (p.154). This is problematic for the author’s explanation of DPT because (1) democratic peace still exists now, after those factors, so if the theory is valid wouldn’t it need to account for the democratic peace now as well as before the 1920’s? And secondly, if all the DPT applies to is a world without nuclear weapons, what good is this theory today? The world has nuclear weapons, and they are likely not going away, so shouldn’t the theory take into account the fact that we have a democratic peace today? Also, by adding in the proposition that a democracy will not war with another state they perceive to be a democracy (p. 146-147), the author is able to explain away any possible exceptions to the theory, and include all possible situations. Therefore, his explanation over-reaches.
Additionally, it is clear there needs to be a common definition of democracy in the DPT literature. All three articles treated Germany differently in the same time period. One article said Germany was a democracy, one said it wasn’t, and one said it was an illiberal democracy. A common definition would be helpful to provide cohesiveness for the theory.
Showing posts with label Realism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Realism. Show all posts
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Waltz and Fozouni: Is Anarchy Needed to Understand International Relations
Waltz: Anarchic Structure of World Politics
Fozouni: Confutation of Political Realism
SECTION I: Summary
Waltz’s main point is that international relations can only be understood through a systems theory and that system’s theory must separate the international relations domain from any domestic domain (p.49). He defines a system as having two parts: a structure and interacting units (p.49). He has three characteristics of a system: the ordering principle (p.52), the character of the units (p.55) and the distribution of capabilities (p.57). The ordering principle is how the arrangement of the parts within the system (p.52) For Waltz’s theory, this means that all parts of the system (states) stand in relation to each other equally because there is no requirement of one state to obey another (p.52). The character of the units is described by Waltz as states (p.55 and 56) and he also demonstrates how they are all like units (p.55). Waltz does acknowledge that each state has a different capability, but says that regardless, they are like units because they each are alike in being “autonomous political units.” (p.56). The last principle of Waltz’s system can be looked as the distribution of capabilities. Waltz says that capabilities of the units is a relative discussion, whereby a comparison is made between the power of one unit and the character of the other units in the system (p.58). By describing these characteristics of a system, Waltz states that the system is anarchic (p.59). According to Waltz, the anarchic system avoids change by preventing intentions of various actors from being effective, and therefore, a change in the anarchic system would require a system change (p.63). Additionally, the anarchic system has the benefit of having a low organizational cost as there is no organization to maintain (p.65). Lastly, states in an anarchic system, cannot rely on anyone for help, and so they protect themselves (p.64). Therefore, the system is unlikely to change because to change the system requires a full and great structural change (p.63 and 64).
In the Fozouni article, the main point is that realism is a failed theory because there are failures in the logical structure of the theory (p.484) and failures in the empirical analysis that the theory is based on (p. 4486). The failure of the theory’s logical structure can be place on the failure of the premises of the theory to be true (482). The premise that all states will expand when they have the capability to expand (p. 483) does not have enough empirical evidence to support it (p. 484). Therefore, if a premise of the theory is untrue, the theory cannot be logically sound (p. 485).
Additionally, the theory of realism fails an empirical examination (p. 486). There is simply not enough empirical evidence to support realism (p.486). This is because, in supporting realism, theorists tend to use only positive evidence, and ignore the evidence that is not supportive of realism (p.487). Instead, theorists try to create ad hoc additional variables or explanations to keep realism alive (p. 488). The problem with ad hoc explanations is that they don’t take the theory and explain the situation, they take the theory and add something to it, which in essence means the theory is incomplete (p.492). Additionally, realism fails because it focuses solely on power as the only determinate in the theory, and ignores everything else (p. 498 and p.507). This creates the problem of verifying that power is the basis of all decisions because of what we know today after the Cold War, that ideology also plays a role (p. 498).
SECTION II: Analysis
Waltz’s theory suffers from a type of logical fallacy. Waltz uses the structure of his theory as his system. He uses the ordering characteristics, units and capability of units as a description of his structure (p. 52, 55,57) and claims that this exists only in an anarchy, so therefore anarchy must be the system that is used in the analysis (p. 59). This is a type of logical fallacy where the input and output are the same. Additionally, Waltz fails to recognize how a system can change, outside of changing the system (p. 63). His theory does not account for any variables that might change the system. However, he does tackle the issue of non-state actors by stating that if they are powerful enough, they become enough like states to qualify as states in terms of his theory, or else they fail to act in any meaningful way (p. 52). This theory also suffers from oversimplification. This is a clear issue when Waltz declares all states to be functionally similar units – or the same units (p. 56). This glosses over the fact that all states are not functionally similar because they cannot all behave autonomously – Israel cannot behave on its own without consideration of the US and Palestinian governments. Waltz’s theory also neglects various variables such as ideology and economics. Instead, he compounds economics, politics and military into one idea – the capability of the unit – because states use their political and economic structures to grow their military and their military to grow their economic and political structure (p. 56). Once again, this demonstrates the dramatic oversimplification present in the theory.
The Fozouni article seems remarkably well thought out. It covers the logical fallacies that are present in realism both in deductive (p.484) and inductive reasoning (p. 502). Also, the Fozouni article considers the human nature concept in Morgenthau’s realism, and claims he should’ve discarded it as it is not a foundation to the theory (p.484). However, why not simply dispose of the idea with a one line comment – that it is irrelevant to the theory and that realism can be explained without the use of this premise - rather than analyze a piece of information that is not vital to the theory? One thing the Fozouni article does well is provide circumstance in which supporters of realism might have been able to rescue the situation (p. 493), and provides various analysis of what variables Morgenthau should have considered to have a complete and viable theory. However, this article criticizes realism on the basis of all the information we have available today, which includes information that shows how important ideology is in international relations. What might have been interesting is to limit the critique to the materials and examples available at the time Morgenthau created his theory and see if the same problems still exist.
Fozouni: Confutation of Political Realism
SECTION I: Summary
Waltz’s main point is that international relations can only be understood through a systems theory and that system’s theory must separate the international relations domain from any domestic domain (p.49). He defines a system as having two parts: a structure and interacting units (p.49). He has three characteristics of a system: the ordering principle (p.52), the character of the units (p.55) and the distribution of capabilities (p.57). The ordering principle is how the arrangement of the parts within the system (p.52) For Waltz’s theory, this means that all parts of the system (states) stand in relation to each other equally because there is no requirement of one state to obey another (p.52). The character of the units is described by Waltz as states (p.55 and 56) and he also demonstrates how they are all like units (p.55). Waltz does acknowledge that each state has a different capability, but says that regardless, they are like units because they each are alike in being “autonomous political units.” (p.56). The last principle of Waltz’s system can be looked as the distribution of capabilities. Waltz says that capabilities of the units is a relative discussion, whereby a comparison is made between the power of one unit and the character of the other units in the system (p.58). By describing these characteristics of a system, Waltz states that the system is anarchic (p.59). According to Waltz, the anarchic system avoids change by preventing intentions of various actors from being effective, and therefore, a change in the anarchic system would require a system change (p.63). Additionally, the anarchic system has the benefit of having a low organizational cost as there is no organization to maintain (p.65). Lastly, states in an anarchic system, cannot rely on anyone for help, and so they protect themselves (p.64). Therefore, the system is unlikely to change because to change the system requires a full and great structural change (p.63 and 64).
In the Fozouni article, the main point is that realism is a failed theory because there are failures in the logical structure of the theory (p.484) and failures in the empirical analysis that the theory is based on (p. 4486). The failure of the theory’s logical structure can be place on the failure of the premises of the theory to be true (482). The premise that all states will expand when they have the capability to expand (p. 483) does not have enough empirical evidence to support it (p. 484). Therefore, if a premise of the theory is untrue, the theory cannot be logically sound (p. 485).
Additionally, the theory of realism fails an empirical examination (p. 486). There is simply not enough empirical evidence to support realism (p.486). This is because, in supporting realism, theorists tend to use only positive evidence, and ignore the evidence that is not supportive of realism (p.487). Instead, theorists try to create ad hoc additional variables or explanations to keep realism alive (p. 488). The problem with ad hoc explanations is that they don’t take the theory and explain the situation, they take the theory and add something to it, which in essence means the theory is incomplete (p.492). Additionally, realism fails because it focuses solely on power as the only determinate in the theory, and ignores everything else (p. 498 and p.507). This creates the problem of verifying that power is the basis of all decisions because of what we know today after the Cold War, that ideology also plays a role (p. 498).
SECTION II: Analysis
Waltz’s theory suffers from a type of logical fallacy. Waltz uses the structure of his theory as his system. He uses the ordering characteristics, units and capability of units as a description of his structure (p. 52, 55,57) and claims that this exists only in an anarchy, so therefore anarchy must be the system that is used in the analysis (p. 59). This is a type of logical fallacy where the input and output are the same. Additionally, Waltz fails to recognize how a system can change, outside of changing the system (p. 63). His theory does not account for any variables that might change the system. However, he does tackle the issue of non-state actors by stating that if they are powerful enough, they become enough like states to qualify as states in terms of his theory, or else they fail to act in any meaningful way (p. 52). This theory also suffers from oversimplification. This is a clear issue when Waltz declares all states to be functionally similar units – or the same units (p. 56). This glosses over the fact that all states are not functionally similar because they cannot all behave autonomously – Israel cannot behave on its own without consideration of the US and Palestinian governments. Waltz’s theory also neglects various variables such as ideology and economics. Instead, he compounds economics, politics and military into one idea – the capability of the unit – because states use their political and economic structures to grow their military and their military to grow their economic and political structure (p. 56). Once again, this demonstrates the dramatic oversimplification present in the theory.
The Fozouni article seems remarkably well thought out. It covers the logical fallacies that are present in realism both in deductive (p.484) and inductive reasoning (p. 502). Also, the Fozouni article considers the human nature concept in Morgenthau’s realism, and claims he should’ve discarded it as it is not a foundation to the theory (p.484). However, why not simply dispose of the idea with a one line comment – that it is irrelevant to the theory and that realism can be explained without the use of this premise - rather than analyze a piece of information that is not vital to the theory? One thing the Fozouni article does well is provide circumstance in which supporters of realism might have been able to rescue the situation (p. 493), and provides various analysis of what variables Morgenthau should have considered to have a complete and viable theory. However, this article criticizes realism on the basis of all the information we have available today, which includes information that shows how important ideology is in international relations. What might have been interesting is to limit the critique to the materials and examples available at the time Morgenthau created his theory and see if the same problems still exist.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Legro/Moravcsik: Is Anybody Still a Realist?
Coyle: Liberalism and World Politics Revisited
Moravcsik: Taking Preferences Seriously
Part I: Summary
The Lergo and Moravcsik article focused on the idea that minimal realism (p. 6) has degenerated realism (p. 53) to the point where realism today can include all the claims that traditional realists reject (p. 7), and exclude no claims (p.53). The solution to this problem, as seen by the authors, is to define a core set of assumptions for the realist paradigm that would be true to all realist theories (p. 8). The core assumptions of realism are: (1) actors are rational, unitary political units that pursue distinctive goals within an anarchic setting (p. 12); (2) that state preferences are fixed and are in conflict with all other states (p. 13); and (3) that capabilities, or the distribution of material resources, is what the outcomes of bargaining depend on (p. 17). If all three assumptions are possessed by realist theories, then the theories will become a distinct paradigm rather than be a conglomeration of all theories including: realism, liberalism, epistemism, and intuitionalism (p.46).
The main point of the Moravcsik article is that liberal theory should be treated as its own paradigm, rather than as a subset of other paradigms or as an ideological concept (p. 515). Moravcsik defines the core assumptions of liberal theory – the fundamental actors in international politics are individuals and private groups (p. 516), political institutions represent the domestic society and it is those preferences the state acts on in international relations (p. 518), and that the configuration of the state shapes state preferences (p. 521) – and states that these assumptions define liberalism as a parsimonious and coherent theory (p. 533).
The Doyle article's main point is that Kant's theory of liberal internationalism helps explain the periods of international stability and peace among those states who share liberal principles and institutions (p. 94). Kant's theory rejects the notion that a specific democratic or liberal institution is responsible for the peace and stability (p. 100) and instead says that in combination constitutional, international and cosmopolitan sources connect the characteristics of liberal politics and economies with the sustained stability and peace the world can/is experiencing (p. 100). However, Kant extends this peace and stability only to relations between liberal states (p. 102) and says that with non-liberal states, liberal states will be in a constant state of war because they feel threatened by states that aren't constrained by representational ideals, as liberal states are (p. 102).
Part II: Analysis
The Lergo and Moravcsik article is a little confusing. The authors stress the importance of creating a realist paradigm that is separate from all other paradigms, rather that the confusing mash of ideas that is "realism" today (p. 53). Then, according to the authors, you can test the causal links of the theory (p. 47). However, it is clear that realism only holds true when there are periods of intense conflicts between states (p. 49). So I am confused as to why the authors would then want realism to be a separate paradigm. If realism is only useful in periods of intense conflict, then what is its usefulness at other times? The authors propose using "two-level" games to include other aspects into realist theory (p. 51). However, this results in the same "mashing" of idea that the authors are opposed to in the first place. But in a two-level game, instead of mashing the ideas into one theory, you are able to use separate theories, and then mash the conclusions together. Instead of synthesizing domestic variables, economic variables or changing preferences into realist theory (as the authors demonstrate that various realists do), you simply conduct two analyses and then merge the results. To me, this is a semantic distinction about where you combine ideas, rather than a helpful and useful idea.
The Moravcsik article is also focused on creating a paradigm – which seems to be his standard method of analysis. However, it is focused on a liberal paradigm rather than a realist paradigm. Moravcsik makes three core assumptions of liberal theory – the fundamental actors in international politics are individuals and private groups (p. 516), political institutions represent the domestic society and it is those preferences the state acts on in international relations (p. 518), and that the configuration of the state shapes state preferences (p. 521) – and states that these assumptions define liberalism as a parsimonious and coherent theory (p. 533). However, Moravcsik then states that these assumptions are commonsensical and tautological (p. 521). He also insists that this framework of liberalism creates an easy and clear connection between previously unrelated areas, and that his theory can also include non-liberal ideas (p.533). It seems ridiculous to create a theory that can explain everything. It also seems as if the theory loses its usefulness if it can explain everything. I think that Moravcsik misses the mark in defining liberal theory, and instead is too concerned with proving that liberalism can encompass everything realism does and more (p. 533). To that end, he fashioned his three assumptions too broadly, so that liberalism can include everything, and exclude nothing. Therefore, his assumptions need secondary assumptions that explain the outcomes – which means that his theory cannot explain anything and is useless.
A different picture of liberalism is presented by Doyle. He simply takes three kinds of liberalism – liberal pacifism (p. 84), liberal imperialism (p. 87), and liberal internationalism (p. 88) – and analyzes which of the three of these gives the most complete picture of why liberalism has created a period of stability and peace (p. 88, 92). Doyle comes up with the answer that Kant's theory of liberal internationalism is the most predictive because it connects multiple variables to peace, and not just one variable. It also can explain the stability and peace that liberalism brings and the war that exists in a world with liberal states (p. 100). However, Kant's theory rests on the concept of a "man" who is individual, rational and capable of appreciating the moral equality of all, rather than treating individuals as a means (p. 101). One of the strengths of this theory is that it explains something, but not everything. Also, liberal internationalism, unlike Moravcsik's theory, doesn't need additional variables to be an analytical tool – it stands on its own. In that sense, the theories presented in Doyle's article are useful analytical tools. It is unclear whether these theories of liberalism can be synthesized into one theory because their understanding of the role of the individual and causal connection to state politics is different. After reading this article, it is possible to understand why liberalism is having a hard time being considered a paradigm, as each liberalist theory seems to have a different understanding of the causal factors.
Coyle: Liberalism and World Politics Revisited
Moravcsik: Taking Preferences Seriously
Part I: Summary
The Lergo and Moravcsik article focused on the idea that minimal realism (p. 6) has degenerated realism (p. 53) to the point where realism today can include all the claims that traditional realists reject (p. 7), and exclude no claims (p.53). The solution to this problem, as seen by the authors, is to define a core set of assumptions for the realist paradigm that would be true to all realist theories (p. 8). The core assumptions of realism are: (1) actors are rational, unitary political units that pursue distinctive goals within an anarchic setting (p. 12); (2) that state preferences are fixed and are in conflict with all other states (p. 13); and (3) that capabilities, or the distribution of material resources, is what the outcomes of bargaining depend on (p. 17). If all three assumptions are possessed by realist theories, then the theories will become a distinct paradigm rather than be a conglomeration of all theories including: realism, liberalism, epistemism, and intuitionalism (p.46).
The main point of the Moravcsik article is that liberal theory should be treated as its own paradigm, rather than as a subset of other paradigms or as an ideological concept (p. 515). Moravcsik defines the core assumptions of liberal theory – the fundamental actors in international politics are individuals and private groups (p. 516), political institutions represent the domestic society and it is those preferences the state acts on in international relations (p. 518), and that the configuration of the state shapes state preferences (p. 521) – and states that these assumptions define liberalism as a parsimonious and coherent theory (p. 533).
The Doyle article's main point is that Kant's theory of liberal internationalism helps explain the periods of international stability and peace among those states who share liberal principles and institutions (p. 94). Kant's theory rejects the notion that a specific democratic or liberal institution is responsible for the peace and stability (p. 100) and instead says that in combination constitutional, international and cosmopolitan sources connect the characteristics of liberal politics and economies with the sustained stability and peace the world can/is experiencing (p. 100). However, Kant extends this peace and stability only to relations between liberal states (p. 102) and says that with non-liberal states, liberal states will be in a constant state of war because they feel threatened by states that aren't constrained by representational ideals, as liberal states are (p. 102).
Part II: Analysis
The Lergo and Moravcsik article is a little confusing. The authors stress the importance of creating a realist paradigm that is separate from all other paradigms, rather that the confusing mash of ideas that is "realism" today (p. 53). Then, according to the authors, you can test the causal links of the theory (p. 47). However, it is clear that realism only holds true when there are periods of intense conflicts between states (p. 49). So I am confused as to why the authors would then want realism to be a separate paradigm. If realism is only useful in periods of intense conflict, then what is its usefulness at other times? The authors propose using "two-level" games to include other aspects into realist theory (p. 51). However, this results in the same "mashing" of idea that the authors are opposed to in the first place. But in a two-level game, instead of mashing the ideas into one theory, you are able to use separate theories, and then mash the conclusions together. Instead of synthesizing domestic variables, economic variables or changing preferences into realist theory (as the authors demonstrate that various realists do), you simply conduct two analyses and then merge the results. To me, this is a semantic distinction about where you combine ideas, rather than a helpful and useful idea.
The Moravcsik article is also focused on creating a paradigm – which seems to be his standard method of analysis. However, it is focused on a liberal paradigm rather than a realist paradigm. Moravcsik makes three core assumptions of liberal theory – the fundamental actors in international politics are individuals and private groups (p. 516), political institutions represent the domestic society and it is those preferences the state acts on in international relations (p. 518), and that the configuration of the state shapes state preferences (p. 521) – and states that these assumptions define liberalism as a parsimonious and coherent theory (p. 533). However, Moravcsik then states that these assumptions are commonsensical and tautological (p. 521). He also insists that this framework of liberalism creates an easy and clear connection between previously unrelated areas, and that his theory can also include non-liberal ideas (p.533). It seems ridiculous to create a theory that can explain everything. It also seems as if the theory loses its usefulness if it can explain everything. I think that Moravcsik misses the mark in defining liberal theory, and instead is too concerned with proving that liberalism can encompass everything realism does and more (p. 533). To that end, he fashioned his three assumptions too broadly, so that liberalism can include everything, and exclude nothing. Therefore, his assumptions need secondary assumptions that explain the outcomes – which means that his theory cannot explain anything and is useless.
A different picture of liberalism is presented by Doyle. He simply takes three kinds of liberalism – liberal pacifism (p. 84), liberal imperialism (p. 87), and liberal internationalism (p. 88) – and analyzes which of the three of these gives the most complete picture of why liberalism has created a period of stability and peace (p. 88, 92). Doyle comes up with the answer that Kant's theory of liberal internationalism is the most predictive because it connects multiple variables to peace, and not just one variable. It also can explain the stability and peace that liberalism brings and the war that exists in a world with liberal states (p. 100). However, Kant's theory rests on the concept of a "man" who is individual, rational and capable of appreciating the moral equality of all, rather than treating individuals as a means (p. 101). One of the strengths of this theory is that it explains something, but not everything. Also, liberal internationalism, unlike Moravcsik's theory, doesn't need additional variables to be an analytical tool – it stands on its own. In that sense, the theories presented in Doyle's article are useful analytical tools. It is unclear whether these theories of liberalism can be synthesized into one theory because their understanding of the role of the individual and causal connection to state politics is different. After reading this article, it is possible to understand why liberalism is having a hard time being considered a paradigm, as each liberalist theory seems to have a different understanding of the causal factors.
Friday, December 12, 2008
The Role of Domestic Policies and Foriegn Policies in International Relations
Waltz: International Relations Theory Not Foreign Policy
Telhami/Waltz: Neorealism and Foriegn Policy
Putname: Two-Level Games
Walt: Realtion Between International Relations Theory and Policy
Burgos: An N of 1
Part I: Summary
The main point of the Waltz article is that international relations (IR) theory cannot explain foreign policy (p. 54) because international relations theory must be at the system level and a theory that would explain foreign policy must take into account the state-level concerns of the performance of governments (p. 54-55). Waltz points out that the question when analyzing an IR theory should not be what variables should be excluded from the theory that might affect outcomes, but that what variables should be included in order to make it a true IR theory (P. 56). Waltz re-emphasizes that the point of a theory is to explain, not to predict, and therefore a theory of IR necessarily leaves variables out (p.57).
The Telhami article's main point is that although neorealism has much to say about foreign policy, through its analysis of IR theory, it is not a theory of foreign policy because neorealism doesn't explain the motives of states including the component parts (p.170). Telhami states that insights derived from neorealism provide a framework for further inquiry into foreign policy (p. 159). This is because the goals of security and power (p. 160-161) which are so essential for neorealism theory provide an important insight into state behavior some of the time. However, they don't explain the varied motives of states when they create foreign policy (p.163 -164). This is because if a state were to act in a way other than to pursue security and power, that state wouldn't be acting in accord with the neorealist theory (p.164). Therefore, while neorealist theory is an IR theory, it is not a theory of foreign policy (p.170).
The main point of the Burgos article is that IR theory, specifically relating to war, is too narrow and simple to be of any use to policy makers (p. 555). He states the realism doesn't seem to fit into the Iraq conflict, because the conflict has moral and ethical terms rather than power and security terms (p. 552). Also, IR theory treats was as a "costly lottery," so that states tend not to engage in war (p.552). However, that also does not explain the current state of the world (p. 553). Burgos also points out that the composition of an institution changes the behavior of that institution, and so theories dealing with war need to be able to take into account the composition of the Army (p.553). Lastly, current IR theory, and realism in particular, doesn't deal with the power of symbols and the various types of power (p. 554-555). All of these things are lacking from theories, but are important in practice. Therefore, Burgos states that it makes sense that policy makers, who have to deal with reality, don't pay attention to theory (p. 555).
The main point of the Walt article is that there is a gap between theory and policy because the work being done in the theory world isn't relevant to the policy world (p. 25). However, good theory (p. 26-28) can help policy makers because: (1) it can help them diagnose the problem they are facing (p.29-30); (2) it can help them anticipate events (p.31); (3) it can help them by providing a possible remedy (p.32-33); and (4) theory can provide benchmarks to enable an evaluation of success and failure (p.33-34). Current IR theory is too abstract (p.34) and too varied (p.35) to aid in any of these goals because the academic norms of the discipline prevent IR theorists from linking theory to policy (p.37-38). In order to make theory accessible and relevant to policy makers, the academic norms must change (p.40).
The Putnam article provides a possible framework for analysis of national and international affairs (p.427). The domestic and international affairs are tangled together because the state must be concerned about both (p.431) and therefore an analysis must take both levels into account (p.433). The solution, according to Putnam, is to use game theory to construct a two-level game where the national political leader appears at both boards (p.435) – domestic and international (p.434) and that one board can influence the other (p.434). He splits the game into two levels, bargaining which leads to a tentative agreement (level 1) and ratification (level 2) (p.436). The variable in the game is "win-sets" which are the variety of possibilities that will be agreed to at level 1 and ratified at level 2 (p.437). The variable of win-sets can take into account domestic variables such as public opinion, interest groups, and agencies (p.436) and international factors such as defection and reputation of countries (p.438). This framework accounts for the entanglement between domestic politics and international relations (p.460).
Part II: Analysis
Waltz states that his theory of neorealism is not a theory of foreign policy, nor is it meant to be (p.54). However Telhami seems to spend an extraordinary amount of effort proving that it is not a foreign policy theory (p.163). Telhami looks at the basics of neorealism – power (p. 160-161) and the balancing effects (p. 162) – and discounts them as not accounting for enough of foreign policy behavior to be a theory (p. 163). I think that some bigger concepts are missing in the analysis – namely that it's not a foreign policy theory because it wasn't designed to do anything except explain an international system (Waltz, p.54). Trying to salvage neorealism as a foreign policy theory by ignoring variables and outcomes (Waltz, p.55) or adding variables (Waltz, p.56), creates a new theory and doesn't salvage realism as a foreign policy theory, which it wasn't meant to be.
Rather, a new system for understanding multiple variables must come into play. The two-level game system presented in the Putnam article seems to be a start. It can take into account the variables that the Burgos article identified: morality (p.552), distribution of war-making power among branches of government (p.553), partisanship of the institutions (p.553), symbols (p.554) and different types of power (p.555). Under the two-level game, these variables would expand or contract the win-set by driving the domestic game (Putnam p.434) and shaping international opinion of the country (p.444). However, it seems as if every variable can be taken into account, somewhere, in the two-level game. This makes a theory – or game - bulky, hard to understand, and hard to use.
Walt makes the point that a good theory is logically consistent and empirically valid (p.26), complete, predictive (p.27) and simple (p.28). The simple part is especially important for policy usage because policy makers aren't selected for their jobs on the basis of theoretical knowledge (p.24) and so they need to be able to understand a theory to use it (p. 25). I am not sue that the two-level game is simple enough, or predictive enough, to be of use to a policy maker. It is not a simple concept. It involves many game-theory models that a policy maker might not understand (p.447). It is also not terribly predictive if the information is incomplete. In order to determine if your win-set overlaps with another win-set, you have to have complete knowledge about the other player (p. 460). This is not practical in a policy setting where reality and the short time those decisions must be made within. Therefore, I am not sure that the two-game theory model, while interesting, is the right model for use with policy makers.
Telhami/Waltz: Neorealism and Foriegn Policy
Putname: Two-Level Games
Walt: Realtion Between International Relations Theory and Policy
Burgos: An N of 1
Part I: Summary
The main point of the Waltz article is that international relations (IR) theory cannot explain foreign policy (p. 54) because international relations theory must be at the system level and a theory that would explain foreign policy must take into account the state-level concerns of the performance of governments (p. 54-55). Waltz points out that the question when analyzing an IR theory should not be what variables should be excluded from the theory that might affect outcomes, but that what variables should be included in order to make it a true IR theory (P. 56). Waltz re-emphasizes that the point of a theory is to explain, not to predict, and therefore a theory of IR necessarily leaves variables out (p.57).
The Telhami article's main point is that although neorealism has much to say about foreign policy, through its analysis of IR theory, it is not a theory of foreign policy because neorealism doesn't explain the motives of states including the component parts (p.170). Telhami states that insights derived from neorealism provide a framework for further inquiry into foreign policy (p. 159). This is because the goals of security and power (p. 160-161) which are so essential for neorealism theory provide an important insight into state behavior some of the time. However, they don't explain the varied motives of states when they create foreign policy (p.163 -164). This is because if a state were to act in a way other than to pursue security and power, that state wouldn't be acting in accord with the neorealist theory (p.164). Therefore, while neorealist theory is an IR theory, it is not a theory of foreign policy (p.170).
The main point of the Burgos article is that IR theory, specifically relating to war, is too narrow and simple to be of any use to policy makers (p. 555). He states the realism doesn't seem to fit into the Iraq conflict, because the conflict has moral and ethical terms rather than power and security terms (p. 552). Also, IR theory treats was as a "costly lottery," so that states tend not to engage in war (p.552). However, that also does not explain the current state of the world (p. 553). Burgos also points out that the composition of an institution changes the behavior of that institution, and so theories dealing with war need to be able to take into account the composition of the Army (p.553). Lastly, current IR theory, and realism in particular, doesn't deal with the power of symbols and the various types of power (p. 554-555). All of these things are lacking from theories, but are important in practice. Therefore, Burgos states that it makes sense that policy makers, who have to deal with reality, don't pay attention to theory (p. 555).
The main point of the Walt article is that there is a gap between theory and policy because the work being done in the theory world isn't relevant to the policy world (p. 25). However, good theory (p. 26-28) can help policy makers because: (1) it can help them diagnose the problem they are facing (p.29-30); (2) it can help them anticipate events (p.31); (3) it can help them by providing a possible remedy (p.32-33); and (4) theory can provide benchmarks to enable an evaluation of success and failure (p.33-34). Current IR theory is too abstract (p.34) and too varied (p.35) to aid in any of these goals because the academic norms of the discipline prevent IR theorists from linking theory to policy (p.37-38). In order to make theory accessible and relevant to policy makers, the academic norms must change (p.40).
The Putnam article provides a possible framework for analysis of national and international affairs (p.427). The domestic and international affairs are tangled together because the state must be concerned about both (p.431) and therefore an analysis must take both levels into account (p.433). The solution, according to Putnam, is to use game theory to construct a two-level game where the national political leader appears at both boards (p.435) – domestic and international (p.434) and that one board can influence the other (p.434). He splits the game into two levels, bargaining which leads to a tentative agreement (level 1) and ratification (level 2) (p.436). The variable in the game is "win-sets" which are the variety of possibilities that will be agreed to at level 1 and ratified at level 2 (p.437). The variable of win-sets can take into account domestic variables such as public opinion, interest groups, and agencies (p.436) and international factors such as defection and reputation of countries (p.438). This framework accounts for the entanglement between domestic politics and international relations (p.460).
Part II: Analysis
Waltz states that his theory of neorealism is not a theory of foreign policy, nor is it meant to be (p.54). However Telhami seems to spend an extraordinary amount of effort proving that it is not a foreign policy theory (p.163). Telhami looks at the basics of neorealism – power (p. 160-161) and the balancing effects (p. 162) – and discounts them as not accounting for enough of foreign policy behavior to be a theory (p. 163). I think that some bigger concepts are missing in the analysis – namely that it's not a foreign policy theory because it wasn't designed to do anything except explain an international system (Waltz, p.54). Trying to salvage neorealism as a foreign policy theory by ignoring variables and outcomes (Waltz, p.55) or adding variables (Waltz, p.56), creates a new theory and doesn't salvage realism as a foreign policy theory, which it wasn't meant to be.
Rather, a new system for understanding multiple variables must come into play. The two-level game system presented in the Putnam article seems to be a start. It can take into account the variables that the Burgos article identified: morality (p.552), distribution of war-making power among branches of government (p.553), partisanship of the institutions (p.553), symbols (p.554) and different types of power (p.555). Under the two-level game, these variables would expand or contract the win-set by driving the domestic game (Putnam p.434) and shaping international opinion of the country (p.444). However, it seems as if every variable can be taken into account, somewhere, in the two-level game. This makes a theory – or game - bulky, hard to understand, and hard to use.
Walt makes the point that a good theory is logically consistent and empirically valid (p.26), complete, predictive (p.27) and simple (p.28). The simple part is especially important for policy usage because policy makers aren't selected for their jobs on the basis of theoretical knowledge (p.24) and so they need to be able to understand a theory to use it (p. 25). I am not sue that the two-level game is simple enough, or predictive enough, to be of use to a policy maker. It is not a simple concept. It involves many game-theory models that a policy maker might not understand (p.447). It is also not terribly predictive if the information is incomplete. In order to determine if your win-set overlaps with another win-set, you have to have complete knowledge about the other player (p. 460). This is not practical in a policy setting where reality and the short time those decisions must be made within. Therefore, I am not sure that the two-game theory model, while interesting, is the right model for use with policy makers.
Monday, December 1, 2008
A Definition of Constructivism for International Relations
Constructivism is not a theory. A theory is a set of statements or principles that is devised to explain a group of facts and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena[i]. That means, in order for constructivism to be a theory, it must be a set of principles that is devised to explain a group of facts and can be used to make predictions about behavior in the international relations arena. Constructivism does not make predictions. In fact, Wendt identifies constructivism as a tool for analysis, rather than a tool for predictions[ii]. Additionally, constructivism isn’t meant to explain anything - and it doesn’t. Rather than explain a group of facts, constructivism is a point of view about how one might go about changing the IR system. It outlines what issues constructivists would deal with in order to change things. However, it offers two variables (ideas and social norms) with no indication on what to do with those two variables. There is no causal explanation in constructivism. Because of these deficiencies, constructivism is not a theory.
Instead, Constructivism is a commonly shared set of initial conditions that must be present in a theory in order for it to fall into a “constructivist” perspective. Wendt’s basic works on constructivism (he’s considered the founder)[iii] is a reaction to realism, and is intended to counter the idea that self-help and power politics are essential features of anarchy[iv]. Instead, Wendt treats anarchy as a social construct (or practice) rather than an inseparable condition of international relations and the way that states see anarchy[v].
The main focus of this approach is to use theories borrowed from sociology about identity and interest formation[vi] to focus on how a change in identities and interests of states can make a change in their behavior[vii].There are two basic tenants to constructivism: (1) actors act towards objects – including other actors – on the basis of what value those objects have as interpreted by the society in which the actor operates[viii]; and (2) the meanings of the terms on which action (like cooperation) can be organized is based on shared interests[ix]. What these tenants mean is that it is collective meanings placed ob objects – such as anarchy – that constitute the structures that organize actions[x].
Wendt’s famous quote, “anarchy is what states make of it,” illustrates these examples perfectly. If anarchy was an essential feature of international relations, instead of a social construct, there could be no meaning given to it by states. Instead, it would function and other interactions would logically flow from it. Realists argue that self-help and power politics logically flow from anarchy. However, by treating anarchy as a social construct, Wendt is able to show that self-help and power politics don’t naturally flow, but can follow from anarchy[xi]. Wendt is also able to articulate ideas (sovereignty, dynastic relations, trade, goals, etc) that can cause power politics and self-help not to flow from anarchy[xii]. With this analysis, Wendt has changed the focus from anarchy as a must and defining feature of the system, to anarchy as a social construct that can change.
Constructivism offers no real guidance on what to study – except to put the focus on interests and identities of actors because those are socially formed and when changed, can make the system change. But there is no indication of which one changes, or how changes affect the system. Without being able to make some causal argument other than: change can cause change (tautological) then constructivism is not a theory, but a set of initial conditions.
[i] www.wordnet.princeton.edu
[ii] Wendt, Anarchy is what states make of it p. 424
[iii] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_in_international_relations
[iv] Wendt at 395
[v] Id
[vi] Wendt at 394
[vii] Id at 418
[viii] Id at 397
[ix] Id at 403
[x] Id at 397.
[xi] Id at 399-403
[xii] Id at 396
Instead, Constructivism is a commonly shared set of initial conditions that must be present in a theory in order for it to fall into a “constructivist” perspective. Wendt’s basic works on constructivism (he’s considered the founder)[iii] is a reaction to realism, and is intended to counter the idea that self-help and power politics are essential features of anarchy[iv]. Instead, Wendt treats anarchy as a social construct (or practice) rather than an inseparable condition of international relations and the way that states see anarchy[v].
The main focus of this approach is to use theories borrowed from sociology about identity and interest formation[vi] to focus on how a change in identities and interests of states can make a change in their behavior[vii].There are two basic tenants to constructivism: (1) actors act towards objects – including other actors – on the basis of what value those objects have as interpreted by the society in which the actor operates[viii]; and (2) the meanings of the terms on which action (like cooperation) can be organized is based on shared interests[ix]. What these tenants mean is that it is collective meanings placed ob objects – such as anarchy – that constitute the structures that organize actions[x].
Wendt’s famous quote, “anarchy is what states make of it,” illustrates these examples perfectly. If anarchy was an essential feature of international relations, instead of a social construct, there could be no meaning given to it by states. Instead, it would function and other interactions would logically flow from it. Realists argue that self-help and power politics logically flow from anarchy. However, by treating anarchy as a social construct, Wendt is able to show that self-help and power politics don’t naturally flow, but can follow from anarchy[xi]. Wendt is also able to articulate ideas (sovereignty, dynastic relations, trade, goals, etc) that can cause power politics and self-help not to flow from anarchy[xii]. With this analysis, Wendt has changed the focus from anarchy as a must and defining feature of the system, to anarchy as a social construct that can change.
Constructivism offers no real guidance on what to study – except to put the focus on interests and identities of actors because those are socially formed and when changed, can make the system change. But there is no indication of which one changes, or how changes affect the system. Without being able to make some causal argument other than: change can cause change (tautological) then constructivism is not a theory, but a set of initial conditions.
[i] www.wordnet.princeton.edu
[ii] Wendt, Anarchy is what states make of it p. 424
[iii] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_in_international_relations
[iv] Wendt at 395
[v] Id
[vi] Wendt at 394
[vii] Id at 418
[viii] Id at 397
[ix] Id at 403
[x] Id at 397.
[xi] Id at 399-403
[xii] Id at 396
Friday, November 14, 2008
Fozouni: Confutation of Political Realism
This is an outline of the article, Confutation of Political Realism, written by B.Fozouni and published in International Studies Quarterly (1995).
CONFUTATION OF POLITICAL REALISM
Main Point: Political realism as a theory in international relations, properly understood, is an empirically untenable theory (p. 479).
The theory we are analyzing:
Morgenthau has the central tenant of realism being: the sole basis of all international relations is the struggle among nations to optimize their power (p.480-481)
Power is defined as the quest to reach optimal power (influence) in relation to other states (p.481).
Rationally acting states optimize one's power (p.482)
He also mentions that there is an assumption regarding human nature – that all men are power driven (483)
M didn't need this assumption. He should've not dealt in it. (484)
Simply because if you add this to the premises – and all premises must be true – there is no proven truth in this statement.
So we can ignore it right?
Deductive-Nomological Theory (D-N)
Must have a valid structure – particular initial conditions and general laws (the premises) result in the event or observation to be explained (482)
Must also have the following 3 things:
The premises must have empirical content
The premises must contain at least one universal generalizations (laws)
These are assumed to have proven empirical basis
The premises must be true – a presupposition
If all the premises of realism are true – the realism has created a grand theory that should encompass everything (485)
No mention of human nature in the theoretical structure – therefore it is unnecessary (see above)
So why can't we discard it as unnecessary and use the rest?
Particular Initial conditions (483)
State A has the capability to expand its influence in its geopolitical sphere
State A's relative power position in its geopolitical sphere is underextended
General Laws (483)
All states that have the capability to expand their influence, and whose relative power positions in their geopolitical spheres are underextended, will expand their influence to power optimization
Therefore: (483)
State A will expand its influence in its geopolitical sphere (prediction)
State A did expand its influence in the geopolitical sphere (explanation/reason)
Empirical Liabilities of Realism
The question of the empirical analysis is: How well confirmed are the observed historical patterns that M uses to justify realism's central tenet of power optimization.
CONFUTATION OF POLITICAL REALISM
Main Point: Political realism as a theory in international relations, properly understood, is an empirically untenable theory (p. 479).
The theory we are analyzing:
Morgenthau has the central tenant of realism being: the sole basis of all international relations is the struggle among nations to optimize their power (p.480-481)
Power is defined as the quest to reach optimal power (influence) in relation to other states (p.481).
Rationally acting states optimize one's power (p.482)
He also mentions that there is an assumption regarding human nature – that all men are power driven (483)
M didn't need this assumption. He should've not dealt in it. (484)
Simply because if you add this to the premises – and all premises must be true – there is no proven truth in this statement.
So we can ignore it right?
Deductive-Nomological Theory (D-N)
Must have a valid structure – particular initial conditions and general laws (the premises) result in the event or observation to be explained (482)
Must also have the following 3 things:
The premises must have empirical content
The premises must contain at least one universal generalizations (laws)
These are assumed to have proven empirical basis
The premises must be true – a presupposition
If all the premises of realism are true – the realism has created a grand theory that should encompass everything (485)
No mention of human nature in the theoretical structure – therefore it is unnecessary (see above)
So why can't we discard it as unnecessary and use the rest?
Particular Initial conditions (483)
State A has the capability to expand its influence in its geopolitical sphere
State A's relative power position in its geopolitical sphere is underextended
General Laws (483)
All states that have the capability to expand their influence, and whose relative power positions in their geopolitical spheres are underextended, will expand their influence to power optimization
Therefore: (483)
State A will expand its influence in its geopolitical sphere (prediction)
State A did expand its influence in the geopolitical sphere (explanation/reason)
Empirical Liabilities of Realism
The question of the empirical analysis is: How well confirmed are the observed historical patterns that M uses to justify realism's central tenet of power optimization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
