Liberalism In Theory20 Century American IR Theory1919-39 Liberalism In the ascendance1939-69 realism was dominant, realists mock earlier liberals as idealists1970’s discovery of transnational relations/interdependence gives rise to Neoliberalism1979-89 heyday of the “Neo-Neo debate”Little’s Three Key Discoveries by Neoliberals in the 1960s and 70sState Fragmentation1) State Fragmentation: “US society seen as fractured into congeries of hundreds of small special interest groups, with incompletely overlapping memberships, widely differing power bases, and a multitude of techniques for exercising influence.”Next, pluralists started chipping away at realist images of the coherent state itself as a rational actor—because of the importance of bureaucratic politics.Under what circumstances if any can the state be considered a unified rational actor?Does the answer vary by country or by state?What difference does the answer make for realism, exactly?TransnationalismA new generation of IR theorists began paying systematic attention to MNCs, transnational media operations, jet air travel, cross-border pollution, and eventually NGOs.InterdependenceIts discovery demonstrated the inadequacy of the Realist assumption that states are autonomous actors in an anarchic world. Again: Billiard Balls – realist View, Neoliberal View – tied together.Neoliberal also developed the concept of the “global commons,” defined as “natural assets outside national jurisdiction such as the atmosphere, oceans, outer space, and the Antarctic.”Two Points, Global Cooperation Area Ex Provided By Satellites.Moravicsik’s Three Hard Core Assumptions Of Liberal IR Theory1) Fundamental Actors in international politics are individuals and groups not states.2) States represent only a subset of domestic society, not a presumed “national interest.”Questions: Does the liberal conception of state society relations seem accurate? What exactly are the implications for realists views on IR?3) Combined societal pressures determine “state preferences,” which in turn shape the state’s international behavior.Moravcsik: “Policy Interdependence” “Policy Interdependence refers to the set of costs and benefits created for specific groups in Country B when dominant groups in Country A try to realize their preferences and their desire (normative goals, values pursued that can be beneficial or damage) in the international realm by influencing their state’s foreign policy.”Public TransportationNormative LiberalismThe world can be remade fundamentally as a better place.International institutions can contain or deter state policies rooted in an “evil” human nature.Institutions can also mitigate the socializing effects of anarchy, such as the security dilemma.In sum, progress is possible.Zeb MousDemocracies don’t fight because they have common national interests with each otherDemocracies tend to be more powerful than other type of state, mutually deterring war.Constructvist Critiques of the democratic peace hypothesisit’s the coincidental participation in a common cultural project that makes war less likely among the democraciesIts not democracy per se but the construction or portrayal of another state as “democratic” that deters war. (India weapon example in which U.S doesn’t worry if a country becomes a democracy)IR Lecture 11Liberalism In Theory-20 Century American IR Theoryo1919-39 Liberalism In the ascendanceo1939-69 realism was dominant, realists mock earlier liberals as idealistso1970’s discovery of transnational relations/interdependence gives rise to Neoliberalismo1979-89 heyday of the “Neo-Neo debate”-Little’s Three Key Discoveries by Neoliberals in the 1960s and 70soState Fragmentation1) State Fragmentation: “US society seen as fractured into congeries of hundreds of small special interest groups, with incompletely overlapping memberships, widely differing power bases, and a multitude of techniques for exercising influence.” Next, pluralists started chipping away at realist images of the coherent state itself as a rational actor—because of the importance of bureaucratic politics.Under what circumstances if any can the state be considered a unified rational actor?Does the answer vary by country or by state?What difference does the answer make for realism, exactly?oTransnationalismA new generation of IR theorists began paying systematic attention to MNCs, transnational media operations, jet air travel, cross-border pollution, and eventually NGOs. oInterdependenceIts discovery demonstrated the inadequacy of the Realist assumption that states are autonomous actors inan anarchic world. Again: Billiard Balls – realist View, Neoliberal View – tied together.Neoliberal also developed the concept of the “global commons,” defined as “natural assets outside national jurisdiction such as the atmosphere, oceans, outer space, and the Antarctic.”Two Points, Global Cooperation Area Ex Provided By Satellites.-Moravicsik’s Three Hard Core Assumptions Of Liberal IR Theory o1) Fundamental Actors in international politics are individuals and groups not states.o2) States represent only a subset of domestic society, not a presumed “national interest.”Questions: Does the liberal conception of state society relations seem accurate? What exactly are the implications for realists views on IR?o3) Combined societal pressures determine “state preferences,” which in turn shape the state’s international behavior.oMoravcsik: “Policy Interdependence” “Policy Interdependence refers to the set of costs and benefits created for specific groups in Country B when dominant groups in Country A try torealize their preferences and their desire (normative goals, values pursued that can be beneficial or damage) in the international realm by influencing their state’s foreign policy.”Public Transportation-Normative LiberalismoThe world can be remade fundamentally as a better place.oInternational institutions can contain or deter state policies rooted in an “evil” human nature.oInstitutions can also mitigate the socializing effects of anarchy, such as the security dilemma.oIn sum, progress is possible.-Zeb MousoDemocracies don’t fight because they have common national interests with each otheroDemocracies tend to be more powerful than other type of state, mutually deterring war.-Constructvist Critiques of the democratic peace