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 liberalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberalism. Show all posts
Saturday, December 27, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
