Realism-Liberalism Debate:

1
Realism-Liberalism Debate

• Relevance to International Economic Relations

2
Readings

• Baldwin. 1993. Neorealism, Neoliberalism, and
  World Politics in Neorealism and Neoliberalism
  The Contemporary Debate, Baldwin, ed.
• Mastanduno. 1991. Do Relative Gains Matter?
  Americas Response to Japanese Industrial
  Policy. International Security 16(1)73-113.

3
Areas of contention

1. Anarchy
2. Cooperation
3. Relative and absolute gains
4. State goals
5. International institutions
6. Intentions vs. capabilities
7. Power

4
1. Anarchy

• Commonly used definition absence of government
• Problem with this definition
• in the global arena, many functions of the
  government are fulfilled by international
  institutions are regimes. Think of examples of
  such functions.
• under these circumstances, it is unclear which
  function needs to be absent in order to
  characterize the world as anarchic
• Both realists and liberalists accept the world as
  anarchic
• According to realists, the most important
  behavioral consequence of anarchy is that states
  have survival as their main goal

5
2. Cooperation

• Cooperation is possible for both realists and
  liberalists, but it is more difficult in the
  realist framework
• Both realists and liberalists agree that the
  survival of the European Union is a test for
  their theories. How does the test work? Is it a
  good test?

6
3. Relative and absolute gains

• Realists emphasize relative gains
• Who gains more?
• Focus on the distribution of gains among
  participants to a transaction
• Liberalists emphasize absolute gains
• Will both of us gain?
• Focus on the overall benefits of a transaction
  (or act of cooperation)
• Gains are evaluated differently, depending on the
  situation
• Are relative gains equally important for ALL
  foreign policy issues?
• Are relative gains equally important in
  relationship with ALL potential partners?

7
4. State goals

• For realists, the goal of states is survival.
  This follows from the anarchy assumption? How
  does anarchy cause the goal of states to be
  survival?
• Liberalists assume that the goal of states is
  economic welfare. Why?
• Are these two goals mutually exclusive?
• Do you think the preponderance of one goal over
  the other has changed over time?

8
5. International institutions

• Do institutions matter?
• Realists Not so much
• Liberalists YES
• Why do
• realists think that institutions dont matter?
  Because they dont have the power to punish
  defectors.
• liberalists think that institutions matter?
  Because states have more to gain from cooperating
  than from defecting.

9
6. Intentions vs. capabilities

• Realists emphasize capabilities, specifically
  their distribution.
• Liberalists emphasize intentions, information,
  interests.
• Why do realists focus on capabilities and ignore
  intentions?

10
7. Power

• The ability to affect others more than they can
  affect you (Waltz 1979)
• In this definition, what is the scope of power?
• What is the domain?
• Realists consider power from a zero-sum
  perspective. What does this mean? Do you agree
  that power is always zero-sum? Why?
• Fungibility is the ease with which capabilities
  in one issue area can be used in another area.

11
Practical application Mastanduno

• Research questions
• Do relative gains concerns affect US government
  policies towards Japan?
• Why are some policies affected more than others?
• If government agencies influence policies, does
  their influence reflect anxiety over economic
  welfare, political autonomy, or military
  security?
• Focuses on three policy areas aircraft,
  satelites, HDTV. Advanced technology matters for
  economic growth and in security matters. US no
  longer has the edge. So a realist would expect
  that these policy areas are salient and are
  considered from a relative gains angle.
• The importance of relative gains considerations
  in policy decisions depends on
• Whether interaction is with ally or adversary
• The nature of the transaction (economic,
  military, cultural etc.)

12
Practical application Mastanduno

• Even when considering relative gains, policy
  outcomes may vary. One explanation of this
  variation is in the nature of the threat
  perceived by policymakers
• Change in the balance of military power gt
  threatened state reduces military-relevant
  transactions with the threat
• Change in the states autonomy gt threatened
  state diversifies markets
• Change in the states economic competitiveness gt
  change in strategic economic policy
• Related to the three policy areas discussed in
  this paper, the concern was economic
  competitiveness (US losing its edge in applying
  advanced technology). As expected, the outcome
  was strategic policy.
• However, policies differed across the three
  issues, because of domestic-level dynamics.
• Study lends some support to the realist view.