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 Peace can be achieved through 3 steps:1. Human rationality: rational individuals having moral

values create peaceful society thus a peaceful world.2. 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

3. 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.

the emergence of MNCs Increased levels of international cooperation in economics,

cultural affairs and science. 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 TheoryBruce 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 inter-state cooperation under anarchy

Core assumptions of Neo-Liberal 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 non-compliance 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 (free-riding) 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:

assume that states will be interested not only in how well they are doing but also how well others are doing

This stems from the focus on the balance of power

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

neo-liberalism ‘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 non-military 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. Neo-realists 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