POLS1005 Lecture Notes - Lecture 4: Classical Liberalism, Collective Action, Nationstates
[Lecture 4]
DOMESTIC POLITICS AND WAR
Puzzle
• The unitary actor approach assumes that states like units. We know, in practice that is not
true.
1. What are the implications of relaxing this assumption?
2. Is it useful to help us understand the recent Afghan conflict?
• “The last three weeks focused on concepts, definitions, and some causes of state action”
STATE INTERACTIONS, REDUX
Realism’s assumptions
• Dominant actors (the actors that matter): nation-states
• Interests: security and/or power sought through self-help in a rational decision making
framework
• Interactions: bargaining trumps cooperation
• Institutions: the international system is anarchic. Institutions have little autonomous power
and reflect interests of powerful states
• Causal mechanism: relative power of states
• Influential writers: Thucydides (classical realism), Hans Morganthau (realism)
• Realism - The international system is comprised of like units they all have power and
capabilities that are generated in ways that we do not focus on and that the way that these
two major states interact are given by their relative power and their concerns about security
Liberalism’s assumptions
• Dominant actors: many types are relevant
• Interests: security and or/power is important but so is economic wealth
• Interactions: substantial areas for cooperation; conflict is not inevitable
• Institutions: facilitate cooperation by developing rules, providing information, create means
for collective decision-making e.g. UN, Security Council, Peacekeepers
• Causal mechanism: state preference over a range of issues
• Influential writers: John Locke (classical liberalism)
DOMESTIC POLITICS AND WAR
Subnational interests
• National (general): interests that are shared across society (e.g. national security)
• Particularistic (narrow): interests that are particular to an individual, group of individuals or
other subnational group (e.g. trade protection for a specific industry or a diaspora community
living in a destination state)
Collective action challenges
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
• Smaller groups tend to be better organized
• Larger groups suffer from free-riding
• Groups may shape policy towards their interest
Can states’ internal politics explain why states go to war (and how they fight)?
What do political leaders want and how do they try and get it?
Political leaders
• Do leaders ever start a way to keep power at home?
• How dos the rally around the flag effect alter the bargaining range?
• Rally around the flag: a short-term boost in government approval from a foreign policy
crisis (little evidence for this)
- E.g. Bush’s approval rate was 30% prior to 9/11 and after the invasion of
Afghanistan following 9/11 his approval rate increased to 90%
- Democracies – rally for re-election
- Autocracy – establish legitimacy or support of selectorate
How do domestic institutions shape the costs and benefits of war?
Domestic institutions
• They help shape:
- Who runs the government
- How decisions are made
- How disputes are resolve
• They can concentrate decision-making power, or establish checks and balances that disperse
it
- Rages from autocracy-democracy spectrum
• They can shape both incentives for and constraints on going to war
• Example of a domestic institution – military
• Governments (and their bureaucracies) balance the competing needs for guns and butter
Types of domestic groups
• Interest groups – individuals within this complex of domestic society that are organized in
order to band together to increase their influence and forward their interests in the outcome of
foreign policies
- Political parties
- Economic interest groups
- Ideological or ethnic interest groups
- Bureaucratic interests (e.g. military, foreign secretariats)
Domestic groups
• War may serve the interests of some domestic groups
- Halliburton in Iraq is a frequent example
- Eric Prince (Blackwater [Academi] CEO) gave - $300,000 to Republican candidates
and PACS during the Bush Administration
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Puzzle: the unitary actor approach assumes that states like units. Realism"s assumptions: dominant actors (the actors that matter): nation-states. Interests: security and/or power sought through self-help in a rational decision making framework. Institutions have little autonomous power and reflect interests of powerful states: causal mechanism: relative power of states, realism - the international system is comprised of like units they all have power and. Liberalism"s assumptions: dominant actors: many types are relevant. Interests: security and or/power is important but so is economic wealth. Interactions: substantial areas for cooperation; conflict is not inevitable. Institutions: facilitate cooperation by developing rules, providing information, create means for collective decision-making e. g. un, security council, peacekeepers: causal mechanism: state preference over a range of issues. Collective action challenges: smaller groups tend to be better organized, larger groups suffer from free-riding, groups may shape policy towards their interest. Bush"s approval rate was 30% prior to 9/11 and after the invasion of.
