Dunne, Kurki & Smith: International Relations Theories 
Revision guide
PowerPoint presentationsDunne, Kurki & Smith: International Relations Theories
Chapter 05
Liberalism
• All classical liberal theories of IR rest on the core assumption that domestic actors or structures strongly influence the foreign policy identities and interests of states. In this sense, liberal theories focus on the ‘second image’ – explanations for outcomes that are located at the level of the state.
• Perhaps the oldest and most famous second image argument put forward by classical liberals is the idea of the democratic peace (DP). Resisting the view that war is caused by defective human nature or the absence of a central authority, the eighteenth century writer Immanuel Kant argued that regime-type was the crucial variable.
• In 1982, Jack Levy called the DP proposition to be the only ‘law’ we have found so far in international relations.
• Although the DP is the best known of the second image theories, there are a multitude of liberal approaches. This diversity is best captured by thinking along two vectors: first, distinguishing between liberal explanations that rest on rationalism and those that rest on constructivism; second, distinguishing between the priority accorded to structures or agents.
Table: The Variety of Liberal Approaches (International Relations Theories: page 93)
|
Rationalism |
Constructivism |
Actor-centered (‘domestic politics matters’) |
Liberal Intergovernmentalism (Moravcsik 1993b, 1998) |
Actor-centered constructivism |
Structure-centered (‘domestic polity matters’) |
Rationalist democratic peace and interdependence theories |
Constructivist democratic peace theories |
• Upper-left box: Actor-Centred Rationalist Liberalism. The core claim of this version of liberalism is that domestic actors influence how states define their foreign policy interests. Societal actors compete with each other for access to and influence upon decision-makers. Such aggregation processes require that national decision-makers are responsive to interest group lobbying. Once preferences have been formulated domestically, rationalist and actor-centred liberalism brings constraints at the international level back in.
• Putnam’s two level game model is a good example. Given the lack of transparency and imperfect information, states can cheat and signal false information about what outcome is acceptable. Also, by excluding domestic actors from the negotiation, governments can pursue interests that may be different from domestic coalitions while at the same time exploiting information asymmetries in their rationale of the bargaining dynamics.
• Upper-right box: Actor-Centred Constructivist Liberalism. In rationalist liberal accounts, domestic actors shape state interests via bargaining dynamics. Domestic groups can highlight potential electoral sanctions if national decision-makers are not responsive to their demands. In constructivist accounts, domestic actors and state actors participate in processes of mutual persuasion and arguing.
• Accordingly, constructivist liberal approaches focus on which argument of which societal group will ultimately be convincing and shape the outcome of social learning processes and national policy interests. In particular, they emphasize norm entrepreneurs – such as advocacy networks in the realm of human rights, and epistemic communities which are able to utilise their knowledge to push forward certain agendas.
• Lower-left box: Rationalist Democratic Peace and Interdependence Theories. DP theory starts from a dual empirical puzzle: first, democracies rarely go to war against each other; second, democracies are not per se more peaceful than any other regime type. To explain this outcome, rationalist DP theories (following Kant) highlight how citizens in general will oppose wars not least because they bear the costs of wars. Governments, being rational actors, avoid starting wars in order to maximize their chances of success on election day. Recent DP theories have deployed rationalist arguments to point out the high costs of putting together an institutional coalition which would support war.
• Lower-right box: Constructivist DP Theories. The basic argument of constructivist DP theory is that liberal states do not fight each other because they perceive each other as friendly rather than hostile. An important dimension to this causal argument is that states learn over time that fellow liberal states are peaceful. Democratic norms matter enormously as they emphasise public debate, rational argument, and processes by which conflicts of interest can be resolved without recourse to the threat or use of force.
• Case Study: The Iraq War 2004 – Probing Liberal Hypotheses
- Rationalist actor-centred account. In explaining US behaviour, this version of liberalism would expect to find a powerful coalition of business interests in favour of the war. Germany's opposition to the war might be explained in terms of Chancellor Schröder's opportunistic reading of domestic public opinion so near to a general election. Yet both these explanations are incomplete without ideological and ideational factors.
- Constructivist actor-centred account. Focuses attention on the ideational and normative reasons for the decision to go to war, as well as the opposition against it. The now familiar story of the rise of the neoconservative movement fits this account, as does the ideological aversion against war that is embedded in Germany’s collective identity.
- Rationalist DP theory. This account of liberalism rests on one strong general finding (democracies almost never wage war on each other) but is weak in explaining particular instances. Moreover, the 2003 Iraq War falls outside the dyadic DP theory as it was a war between democracies and an authoritarian state. While the stance of German public opinion is consistent with the Kantian belief that citizens are generally war-averse, the manner in which George W. Bush was relatively free to go to war suggests that it is not difficult for domestic institutional restraints to be overcome.
- Constructivist DP theory. Does the case support the view that democracies learn through experience that similar polities abstain from violent conflict resolution? Since none of these mechanisms are present in relation between democracies and authoritarian states, it is likely that self/other dynamics will exacerbate the prospects for conflict. It is possible to see several constructivists arguments at work in structuring the relationship between the US and Iraq, in particular, the social construction of enmity. In contrast, the association of Saddam Hussein with brutal totalitarianism did not play out in the same way in Germany for historical reasons.
• The variety of liberal theories on offer today as indication of the healthy state of second image approaches. This suggests that the examination of the nature of states and domestic politics, and their interaction with international processes, is set to remain central in IR theorising and research.
Endnotes
- While Andrew Moravcsik’s own contribution to international relations theory remains in the upper-left box of actor-centered rationalist liberalism, his 1997 review article discusses ‘ideational liberalism’ as a constructivist version of liberalism.
- Russett’s book Grasping the Democratic Peace (1993) is hard to group here, since he discusses different explanations for the ‘democratic peace’ that rest on both rationalist and constructivist assumptions.
Print this page