Tag Archive for balance of power

Global Integration as Seen Through the Ideological Lenses of the International Political Economy

“Global Integration as Seen Through the Lenses of the Ideologies of the International Political Economy” by Kapok Tree Diplomacy

Preview                                              Written April 2010

Section One – Conceptions of IPE

Main Actors and Their Goals. Dunne and Schmidt state that “Realism identifies the group as the fundamental unit of political analysis” and “the state as the legitimate representative of the people” (93), while other actors such as international organizations (IGOs) or multinational corporations (MNCs) have lesser prominence (103). Realists view the international system as competitive and inherently anarchic, thus driving states to “simultaneously pursue wealth and national power” under the principle of self-help (Gilpin 425). Some realists argue that states are power maximizers, while others argue they are security maximizers (Dunne & Schmidt 101). The end goal in either case is survival, and economic success is central to each strategy.

Liberals position the “individual consumer, firm, or household” as the main actor within IPE. Gilpin asserts that the “primary objective of economic activity (for liberals) is to benefit consumers” by using free market principles for “organizing and managing a market economy in order to achieve maximum efficiency, economic growth and individual welfare” (421). Goal attainment is furthered by these actors peacefully cooperating in a way that allows supply and demand to settle into a natural, stable equilibrium (Gilpin 422). Other groups like IGOs and MNCs compete for centrality with states “through multiple channels of interaction”(Dunne 115).

The main actors within Marxism are social classes, principally the bourgeoisie upper class who owns the economic means of production and the proletariat lower class who works for the bourgeoisie (Lynch 537-539). The goal of the bourgeoisie is wealth accumulation for themselves and increasing power and profits for their class while subjugating the proletariat in the process. Gilpin notes that Lenin reformulated Marxism to the extent that “the principal actors in effect became competing mercantilistic nation-states driven by economic necessity” (430). Whether the main actors be classes or states, the goal is the same in Marxism – maximization of elitist interests.

Policies and Views on International Relations.  Gilpin asserts that the “foremost objective of nationalists is industrialization” as it is the “basis of military power and central to national security” (“Three” 425). Realists, or economic nationalists or mercantilists (as referred to in IPE terminology), also emphasize national self-sufficiency which may result in protectionist measures to insulate infant or declining industries (Gilpin,”Three”, 426).  James Fallows points out how politics drives economics in nationalism by comparing it to liberalism and illustrating the importance of “deliberate development,” production over consumption, results over process, “business as war” over “business as peace,” and national interests over individual interests (61-87). In realism, states seek to maximize their sovereign independence through wealth and power.

The Limitations of Classical Realism

“The Limitations of Classical Realism” by Kapok Tree Diplomacy

To what extent has neo-realism addressed the limitations of classical realism, if there be any, and overcome them or not? The following analytical essay shall engage this question by exploring each theory’s core assumptions and then review the effect of these assumptions on key areas of understanding international relations to include philosophical perspective, definitions of power and security, the role of anarchy and rationality, the distribution of capabilities and balance of power, and a definition of the international system.

The essay will conclude by bringing both theories’ assumptions to bear upon the current crisis between the United States and Iran. Given the assumptions, I will draw conclusions as to which theory most accurately ascertains the situation and which is more likely to predict the outcome.

Applying Domestic-Level Variables in Context to Relative Gains, Reciprocity and Anarchic Concepts to Examine Institutional Cooperation in the Middle East

In my initial studies of international relations and world politics through the mainstream theoretic lenses, the idea that “liberal” institutions operating within the anarchic structure of the international system can facilitate cooperation and reduce the likelihood of conflict has deeply intrigued me.  The increasing societal interconnectedness brought about by globalization personalizes the hope that such institutions may offer potential to make the world a safer place. While neorealism and neoliberalism disagree to some extent on the causes and likelihood of cooperation, combining essential components of these theories may prove invaluable to understanding the viability of institutional cooperation. However, neither view seems to fully account for the impact of domestic variables on international outcomes.

Joseph Grieco’s concept of “relative gains” and Robert Keohane’s “principle of reciprocity” in particular have significantly furthered our understanding of the causes and conditions for durable cooperation among states.  Might these tools be inherently flexible enough to incorporate domestic variables, thus loosening anarchic assumptions and opening the door for enhanced cooperation through institutions? Moreover, can the inclusion of domestic variables in context to these tools explain subpar cooperation in the Middle East?

The essay’s first section will offer a brief explanation of the Middle Eastern context in which these theoretical tools will be examined. This politically and religiously fragmented  region is marked by huge disparities between wealth and poverty, Sunnis and Shias, and common nationality and sectarian strife. It all makes the Middle East (ME) an outstanding area to examine the impact of domestic-level variables (DLVs).  In the second section I will lay out a summary of the reciprocity and relative gains concepts and make a general assessment of their ability to explain ME conflicts and lack of regional, institutional cooperation.

In the third section, I will apply DLVs as part of reciprocity and relative gains concepts to analyze the unique intergovernmental organization of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Companies (OPEC) within the double security dilemma of competing state and domestic interests. In the fourth section I’ll review the anarchic environment and role of process as specific variables and causal determinants of state interests and outcomes within a structural view of the state that incorporates a simultaneous, dual security analysis,  and shift the focus from  reciprocity and relative gains to the theoretical perspectives of neorealism and neoliberalism from which they’re derived.

In the essay’s fifth and final section, I will present some ideas on moving forward towards greater stability and equitable prosperity in the ME through the promotion of a few specific ideas to include a greater role for capitalism, education, job creation and religious tolerance. Additionally, the application of “soft power” and “contextual intelligence” will be reviewed as potential strategies that utilize DLVs to shape interests and preferences, thereby influencing outcomes. {20 pages double-spaced + 18 references}

%d bloggers like this: