The failure of the Arab leauge between Rational Choice Theory and neo-Functionalism - Essay Example

The failure of the Arab league between Rational Choice Theory and neo- Functionalism International Relations deal with human behavior in the largest of all social groups: the international society. Hedley Bull (1977), one of the founders of ‘international society’ approach states that “The starting point of international relations is the existence of states, or independent political communities, each of which possesses a government and asserts sovereignty in relation to a particular portion of the earth’s surface and a particular segment of the human population”. International Relations theory is an intellectual treasure trove of Weberian ideal types of phenomenon, structures, processes, causes, effects and outcomes. These theories have been used to describe and explain the phenomena of regional integration, regional organization, and illustrate the role of individuals within this system. Its approach is both traditional and non-traditional. It is traditional because it is organized around the major traditions of international relations theory – realism, idealism, historical materialism, constructivism, gender and globalization. It is non – traditional because it re-examines these IR traditions by asking about the truth which lies in the facts and figures being provided. The two major theories that examine the notion of regional organizations are realism and liberalism. Realism has been the dominant theory of world politics since the beginning of academic International Relations. The unifying theme around which all realist thinking converges is that states find themselves in the shadow of anarchy with the result that their security cannot be taken for granted. In such circumstances it is rational for states to compete for power and security. On the other hand, liberalism is a theory of both government within states and governance between states and world wide. Unlike Realism, which regards the ‘international’ as anarchy realm, Liberals seek to project values of order, liberty, justice and toleration into international relations. The manner in which a theory addresses ontological issues conditions its approach to the epistemological aspect of the agent-structure problem, the choice and integrations of different types of explanations within theories of social behavior. The problem actually raises two epistemological issues. The first is the choice of the form of explanation corresponding respectively to agents and structures. This choice depends largely on the kinds of properties of agents and structures that have been deemed casually significant. Thus, approaches to social inquiry that conceives of human beings as reflective, goal – directed subjects, such as rational choice theory generates agent explanations that are broadly speaking, “interpretive” – that is, cast in terms of the goals, beliefs and self understanding of the agents. On the other hand, approaches that conceive of human beings as nothing more than complex organisms processing stimuli – such as behaviorism – generate agent – explanations that are more mechanistically casual in form. The situation is similar with respect to “structural” explanations. Social theories that reduce system structures to the properties of individuals usually construe the explanatory role of structures as one of constraining the choices of pre-existing agents, while those that conceptualize system structures as irreducible entities underling agents typically understands structures as generating or explaining agents themselves. The second epistemological issue concerns the relative importance of agent-explanations and structural – explanations, of whatever type, in social theory. However, this issue is of less importance as neo realists and world system theorists agree that an adequate international relations theory must be more structure than agent – oriented. Despite these issues an in-depth approach would be adopted in this essay and a critical analysis would be done to understand the failure of an international organization in regards to these theories. Theories can be distinguished according to whether they are explanatory or constitutive and whether they are foundational or anti-foundational. As a rough guide, explanatory theories tend to be foundational and constructive theories tend to be anti-foundational. The three main theories comprising the inter paradigm debate were based on a set of positivist assumptions, namely a denial of the idea that the social science theories can use the same methodologies as theories of the natural sciences, that facts and values can be distinguished, that neutral facts can act as arbiters between rival truth claims, and that the social world has regularities which theories can ‘discover’. Since the late 1980s there has been a rejection of positivism, with the main new approaches tending towards constitutive and anti-foundational assumptions. The current theoretical situation is one in which there are three main positions : first, Rationalist theories that are essentially the latest version of the Realist and Liberal theories; second alternative theories that are post-positivist; and third, Social Constructivist theories that try to bridge the gap. Alternative approaches at once differ considerably from one another, and at the same time overlap in some important ways. One thing that they do share is a rejection of the core assumptions of rationalist theories. Individual Rationality/Rational Choice Theory This theory presumes a structural determination of actor behavior at the individual or personal level rather than an interactive, dynamic process where the interests and wants of individuals eventually influence and shape social, economic and political organizations (Ward, 2002). Rational choice could plausibly lay claim to being the grand theory of high modernity. Its principles are fundamentally about the progressive rationalization of the West and then the rest of the World. Rational Choice Theory wants to replace Homo sociologicus with Homo economicus, because the former is regarded as a cultural or structural ‘dope’ (Ward, 2002). To take a ‘social’ starting-point is, for Rational Choice Theory, to say that social factors, such as norms and structures, are antecedent to the individual, and that these factors are therefore the independent variable, with individual behavior being the dependent variable. ‘Sociological’, or rather, ‘over socialized’, accounts of individuals posit conceptions of individuals whereby individuals’ attitudes and behavior are determined by social norms and/or structures. To avoid this, the theory, argues that the individuals are the independent variable which is antecedent to social factors. The individual, for Rational Choice Theory, is conceptualized as a rational pursuer of self interest. The rationality involved is an instrumental rationality because it concerns the most efficient means to the goal of realizing individual ‘utility’ (defined as material or ‘ideal’ – normative self – interest). This means that the study of individuals entail dealing with how individuals seek to realize their ‘preferences’. These preferences are taken to be stable. RCT cannot conceptualize the social mediation of changing preferences, linking preferences to the influence of a particular socio-historical context, as this would violate the notion that individuals are the independent variable (Dougherty & Pfaltzgraff, 2001). If one did maintain that individuals preferences were socially mediated, then, for RCT, this would mean that the focus would shift from the individual to the social context, and preferences would be ‘read off’ from the context; in which case preferences would be epiphenomenal, and individuals would be the dependent variable. So for RCT, the social context, meaning norms, culture and social structures, is the dependent variable. Culture would refer to the beliefs which individuals happened to hold at any particular time, rather than a system of beliefs or norms which was ‘more than’ individuals’ beliefs. Similarly structures are taken to pertain to patterns of action, whereby the ‘whole’ is not more than the sum of its parts. Structure would refer to the regular forms of action undertaken by individuals and so would be reducible down to the level of individuals’ actions in the here-and-now: structure would be no more than the aggregate of individuals’ action. Thus to switch the focus on to the social context as somehow preexisting individuals’ action. And giving meaning to decisions and actions would be to reify culture and structure, treating such entities as irreducible down to individuals, when only individuals have a real existence in their own right (unlike epiphenomenal culture or structure) (Dougherty & Pfaltzgraff, 2001). Neo – Functionalism: Haas (1972) formulated a theory that he called neo functionalism. He reformulated Mitrany’s theory in three ways: First, he tried the theory in actual application to regional groupings or existing international organizations. Neo functionalism is a global functionalism revised and reduced to a regional scale. In view of the euphoria generated by the European Integration process, Haas argues that neo- functionalism became “one of the most promising models of analysis” in international relations. Second, Haas modified Mitrany’s theory by attempting to integrate functionalism and general systems theory. Finally, Haas tried to produce a set of hypotheses that could be tested in the light of empirical evidence to determine the actual impact of functionalism or international affairs. In addition, neo-functionalism emphatically espouses institutions that would lead to further integration. Neo-functionalist believe that international organization, both governmental and nongovernmental, are the primary means of international cooperative activities. Haas argues that functional cooperation contributes to “consensus-building” and “institution-building”. For example, Haas (1972) argues that congresses and conferences have brought specialized segments of the people of the world into contact with each other for the purpose of solving particular problems. Latter some of these public conferences became institutionalized. Haas contends that the functional theory of integration and organization has contributed to protection of human rights through international procedures and sanctions. By using a functional approach as an analytical tool, he examined the International Labor Organization (ILO) as an example of the international human rights protection machinery and concluded that the functional strategies of fostering the institutionalization of human rights have been vindicated. His work gives strong support for a would-be regional human rights protection arrangement in East-Asia. Neo-functionalists in contrast to the earlier functionalism, argue that functional agencies do not sacrifice the sovereignty of nation-states but simply respond to practical needs. The agencies do not interfere with the nation-states territory, population, and domestic jurisdiction. For the reason, neo-functionalism is a synthesis of federalism and functionalism. The lessons of functionalist cooperation are linked to a utilitarian belief that national self-interests are maximized through cooperation. Haas argues that any cooperation that has occurred has been based not on calculations of the benefits for humanity, but rather on a convergence of separate interpretations of patterns of national interest. Accordingly, Haas questions Mitrany’s insistence that there can be a gradual transfer of political loyalties to international organizations when global institutions become more successful in fulfilling functions formerly assumed by national governments (Hass,Butterworth and Nye,1972). Regional Organization in the Middle East – The League of Arab In early 1945, a regional organization was created in the Middle East, involving the governments of most of the Arab states and giving the impression of a renewed interest in and a commitment of regionalism among the government involved. The League was formed in the view to lay great emphasis on the need for economic co- operation and suggested that it made sense for states situated geographically in close, or fairly close proximity to each other to group together in to a single bloc. Such statements were often phrased in terms of the economic security of the member states, making direct or indirect reference to the existence of other powerful and possibly predatory trading blocs in the world. It was, therefore, a relatively easy transition to insert statements about other, non-economic aspects of security into the regionalist discourse, without suggesting that these grouping necessarily constituted military alliances in the traditional sense of the term. Such statements were often phrased in terms of the economic security of the member states, making direct or indirect reference to the existence of other powerful and possibly predatory trading blocs in the world. It was, therefore, a relatively easy transition to insert statements about other, non – economic aspects of security into the regionalist discourse, without suggesting that this grouping constituted military alliances in the traditional sense of the term. Equally, there were suggestions – delicately phrased, for main reason that the countries in the League formed a cultural and historical community which gave their grouping greater meaning and which lent to geographical regionalism a certain socio-political rationale. The Failure of Arab League – In view of Rational Choice Theory Though the basic aim behind formation of the Arab League was the economic and social security of the member states, however, in practice, experience tended to show that the local or self concerns of regimes became the driving force of Arab politics. Arab nationalist rhetoric lived on, but effective organization and political activity took place on a more parochial level, whether within a given state, or in that state’s immediate regional environment. Disillusionment with the record of self- proclaimed Arab nationalists and preoccupation with political survival concentrated the minds of many on specific state interests. The most important commitment of rational choice theory is that there are important forms of political behavior that are the result of choices made with a view to the efficient achievement of given ends. However, in the case of Arab League the main motto behind the formation of the league is not met in a practical sense. Member states of the league are putting forward more importance to their individual/state goals over the goal of the organization. This is leading in the failure of achievement of various objectives of the regional organization as a whole. It is well stated by rationalists that the concept of self-interest is potentially extremely elastic and this is what has been witnessed in the case of Arab League. The mainstream variant of rational choice assumes that individuals all have the rational capacity, time and emotional detachment necessary to choose a best course of action, no matter how complex the choice. The simplest problem conceptually is parametric decision making under certainty in which each action has a known outcome ( so there is no risk or uncertainty) and the relationship between actions and outcomes is unaffected by the actions of any other individual (so that they may be treated as fixed parameters). Again, with the case of Arab League, this concept is not to be seen. Member states have their own set of objectives which to a large extent reflects their own self-development strategies, in the process of achievement of these objectives they are ignoring rather not working towards the achievement of the common goal and the main objective of the League. Each member thinks rationally i.e., in their own individual interest and does not tend to join any action unless the benefits exceeds the cost. A collective action is missing on their part and this is another major reason for the failure of the Arab League in not achieving its set aims and objectives. CONCLUSION: The most obvious regional organization, spanning the entire Middle East and incorporating all the Arab states, is the Arab League. The original impulses behind its creation were various. It was created somewhat paradoxically as an expression of Arab unity, but one which guaranteed the independence and sovereignty of each of the Arab states. In some respects, the Arab League has come to epitomize a specific problem of regionalism in the Middle East. That is, the public justification and ‘culture’ of the organization have been largely explained in terms of the goals of Arab nationalism: the breaking down of regional divisions in the Arab world and the establishment of the single Arab state. At the same time, however, the Arab League, has become forum in which the great battles of what has been called the “Arab cold wars” have been fought. These battles have been pre-eminently between governments which have sought to use the Arab League to extend their own interest and reinforce their own security at the expense of others. Thus, in the context of international regional theories, like rational choice theory Arab League had been a failure. REFERENCES :  Bull, Hedley. 1977. The Anarchical Society. A Study of Order in World Politics. Macmillan (London).  Choi, Y. J, Caporaso, J.A "Comparative Regional Integration" in Carlsnaes, Walter, Thomas Risse, and Beth A Simmons, eds. (2002). Handbook of International Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, ISBN: 0761963057 (hereafter Carlsnaes et al.).  Dougherty, J.E, Pfaltzgraff,Jr, R.L (2001) Contending Theories of International Relations: A Comprehensive Survey (New York ; London : Longman)  Hass, E. Butterworth, R. and Nye, J.S. (1972) Conflict Management by International Organization (Morristown: General Learning Press)  Karns, M.P, Mingst, K.A. (2004) International organizations : the politics and processes of global governance (Boulder, Colo. ; London : Lynne Rienner)  Mitrany, D. (1968) "The Prospect of Integration: Federal or Functional?", in Joseph S. Nye (ed.), International Regionalism: Readings. (Boston: Little, Brown)  Russett, B. and Lilach, G. "Peace and Conflict Resolution" in Carlsnaes, Walter, Thomas Risse, and Beth A Simmons, eds. (2002). Handbook of International Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA.  Ward, H. ‘Rational Choice in Marsh, D. and Stoker, G. eds. (2002) Theory and Methods in Political Science (Basingstoke: Macmillan, second edition).  http://www.ciaonet.org/   Read More