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)

ssues 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 organizations 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

1.
2.

3.

Peace can be achieved through 3 steps:

Human rationality: rational individuals having moral
values create peaceful society thus a peaceful world.
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
others rights and freedom
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 Wilsons
Principles
Establishment of an international

organization
The right to determine each nations own
destinty
Mutual respect for each states 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.

Increased levels of international cooperation in economics,

cultural affairs and science.

the emergence of MNCs

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 countrys 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, states 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 multicentric 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 statess 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 Theory

Bruce 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

Germanys opposition to the war in Iraq might be explained in terms of

Chancellor Schroders 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 citizenss 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 todays friend can turn out
to be tomorrows 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.

Waltzs response to
pluralism

Serious challenge from realism came in

1979 with Kenneth Waltzs 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 mans 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 NeoLiberal 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 noncompliance 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 someones gain is perceived
as someone elses 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 Neoliberalist 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:

This stems from the focus on the balance of power

assume that states will be interested not only in how well

they are doing but also how well others are doing
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 neoliberalism

neo-neo synthesis
A significant influence of realism, but also an
input from liberal institutionalism:

Ex: Barry Buzans 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 nonmilitary 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