Theories of Power Transfer - Essay Example

Neorealism Neorealism is also called structural realism or structuro-realism. It is one of the theories in international relations outlined by Kenneth Waltz in his 1979 book entitled Theory of International Politics. It is based on the theory that states are selfish, and will always act in their own best interest, and that long-term cooperation or alliances are not favored. It is chaotic and anarchical. Its central tenet is that international relations is based on a balance of power and is a result of the struggle among nations to make maximum use of their power. The primary goal of every state is its own security and survival which is best guaranteed best by military power. Survival is the driving force, thus, states must develop their offensive capabilities to increase their power. As a reflection of this selfishness, and to ensure their own survival, states seek to develop their offensive capabilities, or their military power, so that they can take over the territories of other states to increase their relative power. This means that their power is relative, that is, in relation to the other states (Fozouni, 2008). In the international system, the principal actors are the sovereign states, where the independent influence of international organizations, sub-states or trans-state actors is dismissed. Nationalism is important, while the importance of sub-national groupings or transnational ideological of cultural groupings are diminished. This theory has several key assumptions. Neorealism is based primarily on the assumption that mankind is selfish and competitive. It is not benevolent, rather it is self-centered. Its fundamental assumption is that the international system is chaotic and anarchic. Since the state is the primary actor, there is no higher governing authority to which they bow to. States must muddle through in their relations with each other, with no higher authority that can impose or dictate on any one of them. That is, there is no such thing as a world government. Furthermore, it assumes that sovereign states are the primary actors and not international institutions, non-government organizations, or multinational corporations. According to this theory, every state is a rational actor who will always watch out for its own interest and ensure its security. In the pursuit of its own security, every state will do everything to build up its resources, so that more resources will mean more power for the state. Their level of power will determine their relations with other states, and this level of power is in turn determined by its military and economic capabilities. Also, states are inherently aggressive, always seeking to expand its territories. This territorial aggression is only tempered by other states. However, this build-up will trigger an increase in the opposing state's security, which will result in relative gains only (Thies, 2004). In terms of the European Union, this means that the Community itself, is merely a gathering of sovereign states - an international rather than supranational organization. Thus, the decision-making in terms of economic, monetary, political, and security matters is still in the sovereign states. Ultimate authority and power will remain with the member states. Thus, the Community is merely a reflection of the desires of the member states to cede or delegate authority, which they can easily recall or revoke. The primary reason that the Community appears to be integrated is because the member states feel that this will serve their interests best. Neorealists view the Community of the future as a loose integration of the member states who have agreed to surrender or pool their sovereignty. Neoliberalism As a response to neorealism, the neoliberalism was born. Some label this as Thatcherism (United Kingdom), Reaganomics (United States of America), Economic Rationalism (Australia), Rogernomics (New Zealand) or Manmohanomics (India). Neoliberalism describes a movement away from the state control. In its pure form, this theory centers on the values of unregulated trade and the expanded business horizon brought on by globalization. It posits that the free trade will produce the greatest good, whether social, political or economic. There is minimal government intervention because, according to this theory, the market forces will play its role. The main thrust of neoliberalism is the efficient use of world resources, cheap labor, raw material, markets, to open the markets to developed nations. In this theory, nation-states are more concerned with absolute gains, rather than relative gains. Liberals often see the market as good and workings of market forces as just. Their classic slogan would be "free trade". Neoliberalists favor the opening of foreign markets by political means, using economic pressure, diplomacy or military intervention. They tend to favor multilateral political pressure, through managed-trade cartels (such as WTO and World Bank). They oppose social democracy and socialism, protectionism and environmentalism in foreign markets; however, domestically, they use this as bargaining chip for foreign countries to open up. They put a higher premium on fair trade than labor rights and social justice. In sum, the fundamental logic of neoliberalism is that in order for states to cooperate, they must first solve the issues brought about by collective action; but since no external enforcements exists, then these agreements must be self-enforcing (Block, 1977). The key assumption in neoliberalism is the assumption of rationality. Like the neorealists, they believe that the states are the central actors who will only take a course of action which is most beneficial to them or will give them the highest pay-off. The actors take into account how the other states will react, and they recognize the fact that the ultimate pay-off will depend on the action and interaction of other states. In the transfer of power of the states to the European Union, the neoliberalists believe that in order to succeed, member states must coordinate their actions, often agreeing on common technological and public-health standards. Best stated, the EU is actually a neoliberalists idea of international relations. The EU provides the forum to solve problems that arise because of collective action and which will threaten the cooperation among member states. The EU can monitor the actions of the states and assure the other members that each one is fulfilling the terms of the cooperation. The EU can resolve disputes and create structures for enforcement of agreements. However, the actual enforcement will not be done by EU but by the member states. Because of these functions, the EU becomes a valuable foundation for international cooperation. Social Constructivism Social Constructivism was founded by Alexander Wendt. This theory was in answer to the theories of neorealism and neoliberalism, both of which were viewed as too materialist, that is both focus on the distribution of material power and its role in the balance of power. Their suppositions on the behavior of a state are basically based on power. Social Constructivists on the other hand, looks at the goals, threats, fears, cultures, identities, and other key elements of "social reality" on the international stage as the social constructs of the actors, and view these social aspects as the most important ones. They reject the focus on material wealth. They argue that social reality is not objective, not a physical entity or material object, and is outside human consciousness. It is a set of ideas or system of norms that are put together by people at a certain time and place. Wendt says that "anarchy is what states make of it", meaning, that changing these thoughts and ideas will change the system itself. Thus, social constructivism focuses on human awareness or consciousness and its place in world affairs. The international system is composed of ideas and not by material forces. Although social constructivism is presented as an alternative to neorealism and neoliberalism, it actually shares some key assumptions with the two. Wendt agrees on the existence of anarchy, but rejects the neorealist assumption that anarchy will necessarily result in self-help. He believed that anarchy does not necessarily lead to self-help, but will depend on the interaction of states with each other. He identifies the interaction as more important as this will create the identities and interests of the states. Constructivists are also optimists, in that they believe that the social interaction between states is always sincere. They do not accept the idea of deception like the neorealists. Thus, unlike the constructivists, neorealists will put on a mask of peacefulness only because they feel that their power is not equal to the other actors. Another key assumption shared by social constructivism with the other two is the centrality of states in the international system. Constructivists also believe that the state is the central actor in an international system. Both also recognize the importance of materials and ideas, albeit on a different level. On the transfer of power from the states to the European Union, Constructivists posit that the ideas promoted by international organizations, such as the EU, will influence the national guidelines as it will push states to adopt the norms in their national policies. This will foster harmony and cooperation among member states. Optimists as they are, constructivists believe that cooperation is EU's sincere desire. It turns a blind eye on a state's selfish interests. Systemic constructivists put stock therefore on the importance of the international environment in shaping state identities, that is, the norms that EU have created will definitely shape the norms of the member states. Concretely, constructivists believe that the end of the cold war between Russia and USA meant that the European nations did not have to balance power against each other. In this spirit of cooperation, a new European identity of cooperation and friendship was thus born. References: 1. Block, F. (1977) Beyond Corporate Liberalism. Society for the Study of Social Problems, vol. 24, issue no. 3, pp. 352-361. JSTOR [Online]. Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/800086 [Accessed: 26 September 2008]. 2. Buzan, Barry. (1993) From International System to International Society: Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School. International Organization, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 327-352. JSTOR [Online]. Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/2706979 [Accessed: 26 September 2008]. 3. Boodin, J.E. (1933) Functional Realism. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, vol. 7, pp. 147-178. JSTOR [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1483039 [Accessed: 26 September 2008]. 4. Fozouni, B. (1995) Confutation of Political Realism. International Studies Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 479-510. JSTOR [Online]. Available to: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2600803 [Accessed: 26 September 2008]. 5. Thies, C.G. (2004) Are Two Theories Better Than One A Constructivist Model of the Neorealist-Neoliberal Debate. International Political Science Review/Revue internationale de science politique, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 159-183. JSTOR [Online]. Available to: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1601675 [Accessed: 26 September 2008]. 6. Owen, J. (1994) How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace. International Security, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 87-125. JSTOR [Online]. Available to: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539197 [Accessed: 26 September 2008]. 7. Collard-Wexler, S. (2006) Integration Under Anarchy: Neorealism and the European Union. European Journal of International Relations, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 397-432. SAGE Publications [Online]. Available to: http://www.sagepublications.com [Accessed: 26 September 2008]. 8. Doyle, M. (1986) Liberalism and World Politics. The American Political Science Review, vol. 80, no. 4, pp. 1151-1169. JSTOR [Online]. Available to: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1960861 [Accessed: 26 September 2008]. 9. Newton-Smith, W. (1988) Modest Realism. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, vol. 1988, pp. 179-189. JSTOR [Online]. Available to: http://www.jstor.org/stable/192882 [Accessed: 26 September 2008]. 10. Snyder, Jack. (2004) One World, Rival Theories. Foreign Policy, no. 145, pp. 52-62. JSTOR [Online]. Available to: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4152944 [Accessed: 26 September 2008]. 11. Ashley, R.K. (1981) Political Realism and Human Interests. International Studies Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 204-236. JSTOR [Online]. Available to: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2600353 [Accessed: 26 September 2008]. 12. Herz, J.H. (1981) Political Realism Revisited. International Studies Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 182-197. JSTOR [Online]. Available to: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2600350 [Accessed: 26 September 2008]. 13. (1989) Realism, Liberalism, and the War Powers Resolution. Harvard Law Review, vol. 102, no. 3, pp. 637-657. JSTOR [Online]. Available to: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1341373 [Accessed: 26 September 2008]. 14. Jervis, R. (1999) Realism, Neoliberalism, and Cooperation: Understanding the Debate. International Security, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 42-63. JSTOR [Online]. Available to: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539347 [Accessed: 26 September 2008]. 15. Hopf, T. (1998) The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory. International Security, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 171-200. JSTOR [Online]. Available to: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539267 [Accessed: 26 September 2008]. 16. Cini, M. (2007) European Union Politics. Google Books [Online]. Available at: http://books.google.com.ph/booksid=ZZf1839nw0gC&printsec=frontcover&hl=en [Accessed on: 30 October 2008]. Read More