4. Liberalism: Cooperation in Anarchy

1. 4. Liberalism: Cooperation in Anarchy Lecture 4 – Thursday, 23 February 2012J A Morrison Robert Keohane Robert Jervis Robert Axelrod

2. Admin • Attendance Sheet

3. 4. Liberalism: Cooperation in Anarchy • So many theories!! • States' Reactions to Anarchy • Liberals' Realist Starting Points • Liberals' Focus: Cooperation in Anarchy • A Solution: International Regimes • In What Camp do Liberals Belong?

4. 4. Liberalism: Cooperation in Anarchy • So many theories!! • States' Reactions to Anarchy • Liberals' Realist Starting Points • Liberals' Focus: Cooperation in Anarchy • A Solution: International Regimes • In What Camp do Liberals Belong?

5. As promised, we are surveying a rather large number of theories about international politics.

6. This is because the study of IP is likely the second most theoretically-oriented subfield in political science. (Ken Waltz, by the way, was originally trained as a political theorist.) (I was too.)

7. Why is IP so Theoretically-Oriented? • Key personalities have defined the debate • Waltz, Morgenthau, & Mearsheimer • Small Number of Observations; Large Number of Variables: • World Wars • Shift in Power Distribution: multipolar  bipolar • Change in Organization of International Monetary System

8. Our Goals in this Unit • Get the specifics of major theories of IP • How does "offensive realism" compare to "defensive realism”? • Think about how these theories fit together broadly • Are there distinct "schools" of thought? • E.g. does the term "realism" convey any useful meaning? • Appreciate complexity and contentiousness in study of IP

9. Our Strategy • Take good notes now • Key quotes • Major points of agreement/disagreement • Use simple examples to explicate these theories • "Test" theories using "cases" in subsequent units

10. 4. Liberalism: Cooperation in Anarchy • So many theories!! • States' Reactions to Anarchy • Liberals' Realist Starting Points • Liberals' Focus: Cooperation in Anarchy • A Solution: International Regimes • In What Camp do Liberals Belong?

11. As we saw, Waltz (and many others) assume that anarchy plays a central role in shaping the patterns of interstate relations.

12. But it isn’t clear precisely how states operate in anarchy…

13. II. States’ Reactions to Anarchy Waltz vsMearsheimer Jervis and the Offense-Defense Balance

14. It's all about the (distribution of) power, baby! The "Realist" Slogan… "Power is the currency of great-power politics, and states compete for it among themselves. What money is to economics, power is to international relations." (Mearsheimer, 12)

15. Waltz and Mearsheimer disagree about how states react to imbalances of power. So, structure—the distribution of power—matters, but…

16. Waltz: "Defensive" Realist • States fear imbalance • They respond by balancing

17. Mearsheimer: "Offensive" Realist • States want imbalances of power in their favor • They jump at every opportunity to tip that balance

18. But what if the nature of anarchy itself isn’t fixed?What if the condition of anarchy varies across time, from one context to another? This is precisely the question posed by Robert Jervis…

19. II. States’ Reactions to Anarchy Waltz vs Mearsheimer Jervis and the Offense-Defense Balance

20. Unfortunately, there is a security dilemma in IP.What is the security dilemma?

21. The security dilemma is the condition in which a state cannot increase its security without decreasing other states' security.

22. The security dilemma follows from the fact that the pursuit of security is largely a zero-sum game.I can increase my security by arming myself, but doing so decreases your security. After all, my arms can be used to harm you.

23. But this is not the end of the story.For one thing, the different ways in which I can increase my security decrease your security to varying extents.For example, putting on a helmet decreases your security less than does loading a gun.

24. Here is the implication: The extent to which states find themselves in a security dilemma varies across contexts.Anarchy itself is not the same in every time and place.

25. Robert Jervis suggests that the extent of the security dilemma depends on the offense-defense balance.What is the offense-defense balance?

26. Offense-Defense Balance • Is it easier to take territory or to defend it? • Determinants of Balance • State of military technology: relative potency of offensive & defensive arms • Geography & terrain • State of military tactics

27. The extent of the security dilemma was different here… Battle of Gallipoli (1915)

28. Than it was here. North Africa Campaign (c. 1941)

29. Comparison of O-D Balances

31. Remember that the O-D balance is not about the capabilities states actually develop. It's about the potential.Also, states' perceptions of the O-D balance must be considered separately from the underlying O-D balance.

32. For instance…Hitler might have been passive if defense had the advantage.And Jimmy Carter might have been aggressive if offense had the advantage.

33. They hold that states don't merely reactto the nature of anarchy. A number of theorists, though, disagree even more… They suggest that states might work to transformthe nature of anarchy.

34. These "liberals" are more optimistic than "realists" about the ability of states to cooperate in anarchy.

35. 4. Liberalism: Cooperation in Anarchy • So many theories!! • States' Reactions to Anarchy • Liberals' Realist Starting Points • Liberals' Focus: Cooperation in Anarchy • A Solution: International Regimes • In What Camp do Liberals Belong?

36. Robert Axelrod and Robert Keohane are two of the leading "liberal" international relations theorists. They self-consciously built their theories on the realists' essential foundations...

37. (1) Anarchy Thwarts Cooperation "Achieving cooperation is difficult in world politics. There is no common government to enforce rules, and by the standards of domestic society, international institutions are weak." (A&K, 226) "[Anarchy] refers to a lack of common government in world politics, not to a denial that an international society—albeit a fragmented one—exists." (A&K, 226) International regimes are not a new order "beyond the nation-state," "sovereignty remains a constitutive principle." (RK, 63)

38. (2) System-Level Analysis • Structure of system conditions and shapes behavior "[Prisoners' Dilemma and the logic of collective action] warn us against the fallacy of composition, which in world politics would lead us to believe that the sources of discord must lie in the nature of the actors rather than in their patterns of interaction. [They] both suggest, on the contrary, the power of 'third image' explanations, which attribute causality to the nature of the international system rather than the nature of states." (RK 69)

39. (3) States are Egoists "My argument anticipates this objection by adopting the Realist model of rational egoism... I assume, with the Realists, that actors are rational egoists. I propose to show, on the basis of their own assumptions, that the characteristic pessimism of Realism does not necessarily follow. I seek to demonstrate that Realist assumptions about world politics are consistent with the formation of institutionalized arrangements, containing rules and principles, which promote cooperation." (RK, 67)

40. Liberals' Realist Starting Points • Anarchy makes cooperation difficult • System-level analysis • States are egoistic (maximize their self-interest)

41. Why do you think the liberals went to such great pains to explicitly build their theories on the realists' starting points?

42. For rhetorical reasons. Do you realists see this? A better world is possible based on your own assumptions!

43. 4. Liberalism: Cooperation in Anarchy • So many theories!! • States' Reactions to Anarchy • Liberals' Realist Starting Points • Liberals' Focus: Cooperation in Anarchy • A Solution: International Regimes • In What Camp do Liberals Belong?

44. A&K want to explain cooperation given realist assumptions.

45.  With the Prisoner's Dilemma, of course. How do they model this?

46. Here's how the famed Prisoner's Dilemma works… Using an example inspired by The Wire.

47. Jimmy McNulty grabs Poot and Bodie So… and puts them in bracelets.

48. McNulty has enough evidence to book Poot and Bodie for "Possession with Intent to Distribute," which will get them each 6 months. But Jimmy really wants to get them on a murder beef.

49. Det. Bunk Moreland Back at the Western (Police District Headquarters), Detectives McNulty and Moreland attempt to get the "corner boys" to implicate each other in the murder.

50. They Offer Poot and Bodie a Deal • If neither confesses, each gets 6 months on the possession charge • If one rats the other out on the murder charge, the rat goes free and the other guy gets 10 years • If they both rat each other out, then each gets 5 years