Theories in IR: Rationalist convergence, the Neo-Neo synthesis — lecture #6

First of all, it may be useful to repeat some of the criticisms raised against Liberalism by Realists.
Primarily, this was a criticism related to the perception of human nature. The Realists see conflict, the Liberalists see harmony. Or perhaps saw would be a better word, as this is a fairly dead debate, the parts having agreed on a compromise where humans aren’t indiscriminately good or bad, but rather act in good or bad ways. Furthermore, Realists criticised Liberalism’s view on the motivation of states; states focus more on relative gains than they do on absolute gain, according to Realists. Also, there is some disagreement over the degree of interdependence, and the role of international institutions. Realists claim that the latter is nothing but representations for the interests of states. Realists also claim that the expectations of a democratic peace can be reduced, as previous democratic waves have been followed by autocratic waves. Finally, the Realists criticises Liberalists for not being able to absorb the implications of the terrorist attacks against the US on September 11, 2001.

However, since the 1970s, Liberalists and Realists have closed the gap between them, at least to a certain degree. Through the interaction and intermingling of Neorealism and Neoliberalism, a Neo-Neo synthesis can be seen.

President George W. Bush, August 5, 2004:
“The world is changing. This is an historic times. Freedom equals peace. Listen, we’ve done the hard work, and there’s more hard work to do. But I want you to know that we’re headed for a peaceful world. That’s my hope. My hope is that young children can grow up in a peaceful world. My hope is that we never have to live another day like we did on September the 11th. And you achieve peace by spreading freedom. That’s what America believes. And that’s hard work. Free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations, nations that listen to the aspirations of their people, are nations in which it’s hard to recruit people willing to kill themselves for a radical philosophy. That’s what Americans believe. We believe that freedom is the Almighty God’s gift to every man and woman in this world. And therefore, our strategy for peace is to do everything we can to protect the homeland, by being on the offense against an enemy. But it’s also to spread liberty. These are historic times. That’s why it’s vital we stand with those who love freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

This is an extract from a speech made by President George W. Bush two years ago. In it, it is possible to detect both Liberalist and Realist perspectives. The most obvious Liberalist point of view is represented by his statements about free nations being peaceful nations, and spreading peace by spreading freedom. This is as close as one gets to the ideas about the “democratic peace” mentioned earlier, as his definintion of a free nation is “nations that listen to the aspirations of their people”. Additionally, though, the speech also contained typical Realist points of view: “And therefore, our strategy for peace is to do everything we can to protect the homeland, by being on the offense against an enemy.” This sentence introduces Realist perspectives, by placing emphasis on security, and (military) action against enemies. Thus, it is possible to claim that American foreign policy is a result of the neo-neo-synthesis in IR theory. This post will try to outline what exactly is meant by this phrase.

(Repeat “Liberal Responses” from the previous lecture.)

The Neo-Neo synthesis in IP.
The Neo-Neo synthesis is originally an American attempt at uniting Neorealism (e.g. Structural Realism) with Neoliberalism (e.g. Institutional Liberalism), based on a common epistemological and ontological platform. This was meant to strengthen the main positions of IP against attacks from relativists and postmodernists. Additionally, it was an attempt at making IP theory relavent for Western, and then primarily American, foreign policy.

The scentific platform of Neo-Neo is that IP is the study of regularities in behaviour, with the purpose of explain and predict events and processes. Empirically, Neo-Neo adopts a state-centred approach that focuses on cases that can affect the status quo, such as security, conflicts and cooperation. The Neo schools agree on the questions, they simply offer different responses.

When it comes to the nature of IP, Neo-Neo assumes that (i) the international system is anarchic, with no superior authority to place limitations on the actions of states. Furthermore, they assume that states are the main actors, and that states are uniform and interest-maximizing. The Neo-Neo theories are theories of problem solving, not critical theories, implying that they don’t ask questions about the modi operandi of e.g. international institutions, so long as they seem to function. This entails that Neo-Neo theories are more concerned with providing a status quo perspective on IP rather than providing a recipe for change in the international political system.

Conclusion: This is a synthesis that primarily reflects an American world view, American foreign political needs, and the strong preference for rationality in American science.

Neorealism vs. Neoliberalism — a point by point comparison.
Neorealism sees anarchy as a factor that greatly restricts the foreign policy of states. Neoliberalism agrees on this, but adds that complex interdependence modifies the anarchy.

According to Neorealists, IP is first and foremost a struggle for survival. Whereas the Neoliberals, while agreeing that IP is characterized by competition, emphasises that cooperation is possible in cases where the interests of states converge.

Neorealists claim that states primarily are interested in relative gains, while Neoliberalists propounds that states seek absolute gains, especially in cases where their interests converge withe those of other states.

This may be a consequence of the fact that Neorealists focuses high politics as the goal of states, while the Neoliberalists assert that states follow low politics goals, as it is here the common interests between staes can be found.

Neorealists understant foreign policy as being about the survival of the state. Neoliberalists, on the other hand, understand it as being the handling of complex interdependence.

Neorealist claim that international institutions are shaped by states struggling for survival. Neoliberalists say that international institutions can shape and influence the foreign policy of states.

Finally, Neorealists still see power or the threat of military coercion as being the most important tool for state survival. Neoliberalists claim that other foreign political tools can be mroe important in cases where common interests exist.

Neorealism and Globalization.
According to Neorealists, states are still the most important actors in IR. Because of this, IR is still primarily dominated by relations between states, from which it follows that there is no real globalization. What Neorealists are most preoccupioed with in regard to globalization, is the security questions that arise as a consequence of an uneven globalization, questions relating to inequality and conflict.

Neoliberalism and Globalization.
To Neoliberalists, globalization is a most real and positive process. Eventually, it will cause economic growth in all states, and because of this it shouldn’t be attempted to guide or control globalization. In spite of this, there are some Neoliberalists who claim that states should intervene in other states to promote open markets, capitalism and democracy.

The limitations of the rational convergence.
Rational convergence theories do not take into account an eventual learning aspect: They only care if something works or not, not if actors learn from their mistakes.
Neither do they take into account that idealistic motivations can take precedence over self-interest or the common interest. There’s also a question about how one should find the self-interest of states. Should one perhaps study the speeches of political leaders and other political documents? How reliable/credible are such sources as these?

What debates are taking place after the rationalist convergence?
1. The (smaller) debate within the rational (Neo-Neo) approach: Relative or absolute gains? Is this a superficial debate?
2. Radicalism (i.e. the theories inspired by Marx and Engels) vs. Neo-Neo.
3. The (larger) rationalist vs. reflectivist/postmodernist debate. Largest, because Liberalists, Realists and Radicals all agree on how the world can be studied as an objective … ummm… object, The Reflectivists and the Postmodernists, on the other hand, see the world as subjective.

(Wow, I’m practically ajour with my lecture notes! If it weren’t for the lecture I had and hour ago, and the lecture I’ll attend in an hour, I’d be perfectly ajour.)