Chapter2 Realists Theories

© 2012 Joshua S. Goldstein and Jon C. Pevehouse

Realist Theories

International Relations 10/eGoldstein and Pevehouse Pearson Education, Inc.


CHAPTER TWO


Realism• Theoretical framework that has held a central

position in the study of IR• Based on the principle of dominance

- International relations is best understood in terms of power. The exercise of power by states toward each other is sometimes called realpolitik, or just power politics.


The Realist Tradition

• Modern realism has extensive historical roots.

• Realists tend to treat political power as separate from, and predominant over:

- Morality- Ideology- Social, economic parts of life

• States pursue their own interests in an international system of sovereign states without a central authority (known as structural anarchy).

o Sun Tzuo Thucydideso Machiavellio Hobbeso Morgenthau


Realism• Modern realism developed in reaction to a liberal

tradition that realists called idealism.- Idealism emphasizes international law, morality, and international organizations, rather than power alone, as key influences on international events.- Belief that human nature is basically good- Flourished between WWI and WWIIWoodrow Wilson and the League of Nations

Failed to stop Italian, Japanese, and German aggression

• Since WWII, realists have blamed idealists for looking too much at how the world ought to be rather than how it really is.


Realism• Realism and U.S. foreign policy

- Opposition to nation building or morality-based interventions- Hans Morgenthau and Vietnam: A communist Vietnam would “not harm U.S. national interests.”

- In 2002, 33 IR scholars signed a New York Times advertisement warning that “war with Iraq is not in America’s national interest.”

• Recently, realist influence has increased as problems in Iraq have cast doubt on the merits of the neoconservative approach.



Power• Power is an important concept in international

relations, and for realism in particular. • It is notoriously difficult to define and measure.


Defining Power• Often defined as “the ability to get another actor to

do what it would not otherwise have done” or “to affect others more than others affect you”

• One approach distinguishes power as influence from power as capability.

• There are some problems with measuring influence.- How do we know what a second actor would have

done in the absence of the first power’s influence?- Circular logic: power is defined as influence, and

influence measures power. • Capability is not influence itself, but the ability or

potential to influence others.


Defining Power• Capabilities can be based on material elements.

- Economic development, populations size, armed forces, territory, natural resources, other tangible capabilities

• The best single indicator of a state’s material power may be its gross domestic product (GDP).

- Combines overall size, technological level, and wealth

• Capabilities can also be thought of in nonmaterial terms.

- The power of ideas (soft power)- National will, diplomatic skill, popular support for

government (legitimacy), and so forth


Estimating Power• Power can only explain so much. Real-world IR

depends on many other elements, including accidents or luck.

• Relational concept: Relative power is the ratio of the power that two states can bring to bear against each other.

• The logic of power suggests:- The more powerful state will generally prevail.

- Estimates of the power of two antagonists should help explain the outcome. But there are exceptions: U.S. and Vietnam, U.S.S.R and Afghanistan, U.S. and Iraq.


Elements of Power• The relationship between capabilities and power is

complex. Simple indicators do not always predict who will win the war.

• State power is a mix of many ingredients.- Natural resources, industrial capacity, moral

legitimacy, military preparedness, and popular support of government


Elements of Power• Long-term elements of power

- Total GDP, population, territory, geography, and natural resources

- Less tangible long-term elements of power include political culture, patriotism, education of the

population, and strength of the scientific and technological base.

- Credibility of its commitments (reputation for keeping word)

- Ability of one state’s culture and values to consistently shape the thinking of other states (power of ideas)


Elements of Power• Some capabilities allow actors to exercise influence in

the short term:- Military forces and military-industrial complex- Quality of the state’s bureaucracy- Less tangible: Support and legitimacy that an actor commands in the short term from constituents and allies- Loyalty of a nation’s army and politicians to its leader

• Trade-offs among possible capabilities always exist.• Realists tend to see military force as the most

important element of national power in the short term.


Elements of Power• Geopolitical power: location, location, location

- States increase their power to the extent that they can use geography to enhance their military capabilities.

- Two-front problem: Germany and Russia- Insular: Britain and United States- In general, power declines as a function of distance from a home state.

• Is moral authority a source of power?- States have long clothed their actions, however

aggressive, in rhetoric about their peaceful and defensive intentions. This can generate domestic and international support.


The International System• States interact within a set of long-established “rules

of the game” governing what is considered a state and how states treat each other.

• Together these rules shape the international system.


Anarchy and Sovereignty• Realists believe that there is a fundamental difference

between domestic and international systems.- Within states, both democratic and autocratic governments enforce rules on societies and have a monopoly on the use of force. - Internationally, there is no central government that has similar abilities.

• The international system is characterized by anarchy. - States are sovereign actors in an anarchic system: each government has the right, in principle, to do whatever it wants in its own territory.


Anarchy and Sovereignty• Is world government the only solution?• Despite anarchy, the international system is far from

chaotic.- International organizations and agreements do exist.- The great majority of state interactions closely

adhere to norms of behavior.• Still, the absence of a “world police force” to punish

states if they break an agreement makes enforcement of international agreements difficult.

- North Korea and its nuclear facilities


Anarchy and Sovereignty• Respect for the territorial integrity of all states,

within recognized borders, is an important principle of IR.

• In practice, most states have a harder and harder time warding off interference in their affairs.

- Human rights abuses- Election monitoring

• Impact of information revolution and globalization is challenging the existing territorial system/information economies

• Diplomatic norms govern the manner in which states interact with one another (e.g., embassies, spying).


The Security Dilemma• Anarchy produces uncertainty about other states and

their intentions.• This can produce a security dilemma between states.

- Actions taken to ensure the first actor’s security threaten the security of one or more other actors.

- Arms races, conflict spirals- Negative consequence of anarchy in the international system


Balance of Power• Refers to the general concept of one or more states’

power being used to balance that of another state or group of states

• Balance of power can refer to: - Any ratio of power capabilities between states or

alliances- Only a relatively equal ratio of power- Alternatively, it can refer to the process by which

counterbalancing coalitions have repeatedly formed in history to prevent one state from conquering an entire region.


Balance of Power• Theory of balance of power

- Counterbalancing occurs regularly and maintains stability of the international system.

- Stability does not necessarily imply peace but, rather, the basic maintenance of the international system by means of recurring wars that adjust power relations.

• Alliance building is a key form of balancing.- Quicker, cheaper, and more effective than building one’s own capabilities

• States sometimes bandwagon instead of balance.- West Europe and Japan side with the U.S. post-WWII.

Figure 2.1



Great Powers and Middle Powers• The most powerful states in the system exert most of

the influence on international events and therefore get the most attention from IR scholars.

- Handful of states possess the majority of the world’s power resources.- Typically, there are about a half-dozen great powers

in the international system at any point in time.- Until the 1900s, the great power club was almost

exclusively European.


Great Powers and Middle Powers• What is a great power?

- Defined generally as states that can be defeated militarily only by another great power- Great powers also tend to share a global outlook based on national interests far from their home territories.- Generally have the world’s strongest military forces and the strongest economies

• Today: U.S., China, Russia, Japan, Germany, France, and Britain• U.S. is the most powerful state among this group and may be

considered the world’s only superpower.• China is challenging the U.S. however; it has the world’s largest

population, rapid economic growth, and a large military, with a credible nuclear arsenal.



Great Powers and Middle Powers• Middle powers

- Rank somewhat below the great powers - Some are large but not highly industrialized.- Others may be small with specialized capabilities.- May have aspirations for regional dominance- Examples: midsized countries such as Canada, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Poland, Ukraine, South Korea, and Australia, or larger or influential countries in the global South such as India, Indonesia, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Nigeria, South Africa, Israel, Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan


Power Distribution• For many realists, the most important characteristic of

the international system is the distribution of power among states.

• Neorealism, or structural realism emerged in 1990s- Explains patterns of international events in terms of the system structure (distribution of power) rather than the internal makeup of individual states- Approach is more scientific, but loses richness of classical realism (geography, political will, diplomacy)- Recently, neoclassical realists have sought to restore some complexity to the neorealist approach.


Power Distribution• Polarity refers to the number of independent power

centers in the system.- Multipolar system: Has five or six centers of power, which are not grouped into alliances

(e.g., late-19th century Europe)- Tripolar system: Has three centers of power

(e.g., China, the U.S., and U.S.S.R. in 1970s)- Bipolar system: Has two centers of power

(e.g., U.S. and U.S.S.R. for most of Cold War)- Unipolar system: Has a single center of power

around which all others revolve (hegemony)(e.g., U.S. in 1990s)



Power Transition Theory• Power transition theory

- Holds that the largest wars result from challenges to the top position in the status hierarchy, when a rising power is surpassing or threatening to surpass the most powerful state- Challengers that feel locked out by the old rules may

try to change them.- If a challenger does not start a war to displace the

top power, the latter may provoke a “preventive” war to stop the rise of the challenger before it becomes too great a threat.

• Are the U.S. and China headed toward a power transition?


Hegemony• Hegemony is one state’s holding a preponderance of

power in the international system.• This allows it to single-handedly dominate the rules

and arrangements by which international political and economic relations are conducted.

• Hegemonic stability theory- Holds that hegemony provides some order similar to a central government in the international system: reducing anarchy, deterring aggression, promoting free trade, and providing a hard currency that can be used as a world standard.

• U.S. hegemony: A complex phenomenon- Isolationist tendencies at home, resentment abroad


The Great-Power System: 1500-2000

• Treaty of Westphalia, 1648- Symbolizes birth of modern international system- Set rules of state relations - Rules originated in Europe in the 16th century, prior

to Treaty of Westphalia. - Key to this system was the ability of one state, or a coalition, to balance the power of another state so it could not gobble up smaller units and create a

universal empire.


The Great-Power System, 1500-2000• Key events in evolution of the international system:

- The early influence of Britain, France, Austria-Hungary, and Spain

- Rise and fall of the Ottoman Empire- The Hapsburg Dynasty- Impact of industrialization on economic and military development- Napoleonic Wars- The Congress of Vienna (1815) and Concert of Europe- Rise of Germany, WWI and WWII- Post-war rise of U.S., U.S.S.R., and the Cold War - Global governance: UN Security Council


Alliances• An alliance is a coalition of states that coordinate

their actions to accomplish some end.- Most are formalized in written treaties.- Concern a common threat and related issues of

international security- Endure across a range of issues and a period of time


Purposes of Alliances• Augmenting their members’ power

- By pooling capabilities, two or more states can exert greater leverage in their bargaining with other states.- For smaller states, alliances can be their most

important power element.- Most form in response to a perceived threat.

• Burden sharing between alliance members• Alliance cohesion

- The ease with which the members hold together an alliance. Tends to be high when national interests

converge and when cooperation within the alliance becomes institutionalized and habitual.


NATO• NATO = North Atlantic Treaty Organization

- 28 members; encompasses Western Europe and North America- Founded in 1949 to oppose and deter Soviet power in Europe- Countered by the Warsaw Pact (1955), which disbanded in 1991- Article V, considered the heart of NATO, asks members to come to the defense of a fellow member under attack.- First use of force by NATO was in Bosnia in 1994 in support of the UN mission there.- Article V enacted after September 11, 2001, attacks.


NATO• Recent challenges for NATO

- European Union formed its own rapid deployment force, outside NATO.- Eastward expansion, beyond the East-West Cold War dividing line, has met fierce Russian opposition.

- Ongoing role in Afghanistan


Figure 2.5


Other Alliances• U.S.-Japanese Security Treaty

- U.S. maintains nearly 50,000 troops in Japan.- Japan pays the U.S. several billion dollars annually to offset about half the cost of maintaining these troops.- Created in 1951 against the potential Soviet threat to Japan

• U.S. has alliances with other states, including South Korea and Australia.

• De facto allies of U.S. - Best example is Israel

• Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)- Former Soviet Republics, minus Baltics, Georgia (2008)


Regional Alignments• In the global South, many states joined a nonaligned

movement during the Cold War.- Stood apart from the U.S.-Soviet rivalry- Led by India and Yugoslavia

- Undermined by the membership of Cuba• Organization of African Unity

– NGO that reformed as the African Union (AU)– Stronger organization with a continent-wide parliament,

central bank, and court


Regional Alignments• China loosely aligned with Pakistan in opposition to

India (which was aligned with the Soviet Union).- Relationships with India warmed after end of Cold

War.• Anti-Israel alignment of the Arab countries?

- Broke down in 1978 as Egypt and Jordan made peace with Israel- But reignited during Israel war(s) with Hezbollah and Hamas- Israel and Turkey formed a close military alliance.- Role of Iran


Figure 2.6


Strategy and Statecraft• Statecraft: The art of managing state affairs and

effectively maneuvering in a world of power politics among sovereign states.

• Strategy: What kinds of capabilities to develop, given limited resources, in order to maximize international influence?

- Example: China’s diplomatic and military strategy of preventing Taiwanese independence


Strategy and Statecraft• There are several strategies available to states.• Deterrence

- Uses a threat to punish another actor if it takes a certain negative action

• Compellence- Refers to the use of force to make another actor take some action (rather than refrain from taking an action)

• Escalation and arms races- A reciprocal process in which two (or more) states

build up military capabilities in response to each other


Rationality• Most realists assume that those who wield power

while engaging in statecraft behave as rational actors in their efforts to influence others.

• This assumption implies that:- States and other international actors can identify their interests and put priorities on various interests.- Actors are able to perform a cost-benefit analysis: calculating the costs incurred by a possible action and the benefits it is likely to bring.

• Is this assumption problematic? How does one:- Determine the “interests” of a complex state?- Tally the value of intangible costs and benefits?


The Prisoner’s Dilemma• Game theory

- Branch of mathematics concerned with predicting bargaining outcomes- Game is a setting in which two or more players choose among alternative moves, once or repeatedly.- Each combination of moves (by all players) results in a set of payoffs (utility) to each player.- Game theory aims to deduce likely outcomes given the players’ preferences and the possible moves open to them.

• Game theory first used in IR in 1950s and 1960s- Focused on modeling U.S. – Soviet relations


The Prisoner’s Dilemma• Prisoner’s Dilemma (PD)

– Captures collective-goods problem common to IR– All players make choices that in the end make them all

worse off than under a different set of moves.– They could all do better, but as individual rational actors

they are unable to achieve this outcome.– Bank robber story – IR example: India and Pakistan



Other Games in IR• Zero-sum games and non-zero-sum games

- In a zero-sum game there is no point in communication or cooperation between the players because their interests are diametrically opposed. But in a non-zero- sum game, coordination of moves can maximize the total payoff to the players, although each may still maneuver to gain a greater share of that total payoff.

• The “Game of Chicken”- In the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy, “won” by seeming ready to risk nuclear war if Soviet Premier Khrushchev did not back down and remove Soviet missiles from Cuba.

Documents

Chapter2 Realists Theories