Class Notes (810,496)
Canada (494,139)
POLI 244 (343)

Poli 244 Sept 26 lecture--.docx

4 Pages
Unlock Document

McGill University
Political Science
POLI 244
Jason Scott Ferrell

Zoe Knowles POLI Lecture 10 26/9/12 Second essay questions: doyle’s version of liberalism: liberal internationalism vis-à-vis Kant! Doyle is sort of wrong about Schumpeter and Machiavelli Anarchy: look at a broad and specific scholars perspective focus on one of the theories and then focus on one of the writers that agrees eg. characterization of realism and then focus in on it Mearsheimer and Morgenthau have very different views T look at neo vs classical realism very differently! -cant just talk about realism and liberalism generally b/c there's no “liberal” approach but rather there are variations on it. -there are as many interpretations of liberalism as there are scholars Liberalism: (types of liberalism cont’d from lecture 9) 3. Neo-Liberalism -be aware of the various (ie controversial) opinions on these concepts, especially neo- liberalism -an approach that arose in the 80s as a response to neo-realism (a structural theory) -neo-realism T neo-liberalism -evolves out of the critique of neo-realism -highlights the importance of int’l institutions and helps to overcome uncertainty in int’l relations (IR) -this idea of uncertainty can go with security issues, or with trade issues, cultural concerns, etc  T this means that there’s a structural aspect to neo-liberalism; distinguishes itself from other forms of liberalism by neo-liberals may not take into account the domestic level interests like republican liberalists might do. -anarchy (and in some sense the security dilemma): the idea of collective goods and int’l regimes and the idea of collective security -work from bottom up domestic level up (to int’l level.) BUT this doesn’t do that (go from bottom to up) -IR is defined by a lack of hierarchy b/c there’s no authority or power that serves as the role of gov’t that can settle disputes amongst actors like gov’t can settle disputes between citizens T this is understood by realists as the security dilemma (ie arms race) -neo-realists compact the security dilemma as the prisoners dilemma -in a self-help environment where you can’t be helped by others -realist take: interests are defined as a self interest; individual interests; realism tends to discount mutual interests -self interest: defined in terms of the short run act now or suffer the consequences. Think about the prisoners dilemma neo liberalism: -contests the degree of the security dilemma (is it really that bad) and the idea of self interest (are there not mutually shared interests and these could be important) and contests the presumption towards short term thinking. -security dilemma is important BUT isn’t all encompassing. -highlights the importance of mutually beneficial goals/mutually shared interests. Zoe Knowles POLI Lecture 10 26/9/12 -tries to indicate how actors can think in terms of the long run (long term goals.) -neo-liberals accept the idea of anarchy (no hierarchy in terms of IR) BUT this does not remove cooperation -despite the idea of anarchy, neo-liberalists that states tend to cooperate more than they don’t quite frequently and regularly. -we tend to only think about war, BUT we tend to ignore other occasions when we cooperate in instances other than in war. -how does cooperation arise? Security dilemma is less acute -survival is less worrisome than realists presume. b/c in the modern state system, states don’t die very frequently T survival isn’t that big of a deal states persist -regime changes BUT states persist -along these lines, reconsider the idea of the prisoners dilemma: for a one-shot game (where you interact with the other actor only one time) you want what’s best for you BUT they conclude that if we extend the play (if we extend our interactions with the other actors)/if we can engage each other repeatedly (repeated plays) then it makes sense to cooperate -think about prisoners dilemma as differentiation of preferences: if we have repeated plays then it will be easier to make cooperation the most preferred outcome. Think about the benefits of cooperation so that we can avoid that one-shot outcome. -players mirror each others’ moves/match each others’ responses (tick for tack) you continue to cooperate UNTIL one player doesn’t want to cooperate anymore T this reflects IR b/c states do cooperate until someone stops cooperating then they both stop cooperating. -mirroring the actions of the other person: ie cooperate when they cooperate, etc -HOWEVER this does not anticipate when states don’t cooperate. -principle at play is the idea of reciprocity: states respond to each other/interact with each other in a reciprocal manner. So long as interactions continue to be good, then that extends the play extension of cooperation. -mutually beneficial endeavors as they try to continue cooperation. -neo-liberals accept the security dilemma BUT they don’t see it as the hallmark of IR -cooperation is contingent on what other actors do. b/c you don’t always just cooperate BUT RATHER you cooperate depending on if others do too -in the long run, cooperation is beneficial -in the short term, cooperation may not be so beneficial T actors may def
More Less

Related notes for POLI 244

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.