Class Notes (835,600)
Canada (509,275)
POLI 244 (357)
Lecture 4

Week 4 Lecture notes.docx

16 Pages
87 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Political Science
Course
POLI 244
Professor
Jason Scott Ferrell
Semester
Fall

Description
Sept 24 th2012 Two types of liberalism:  Republican Liberalism  Commercial Liberalism  Neo-Liberalism Many varieties of Liberalism in the literature.  They all share certain common features.  State is not a unitary actor.  Domestic actors can be important  The ends that the states pursue are flexible and can change  Foreign policy matters o More than simple survival, the security dilemma  Anarchy is not simply defined in terms of security dilemma  When the security dilemma exists, liberals know of it, but it is not the main part of the theory that liberals care about.  Room for cooperation (due to different perception of anarchy)  International institutions and organizations matter o Non-state actors matter Republican Liberalism:  Captured central assumption of most liberals o The type of regime matters o Where or not the state is a democracy or a republic matters o It’s important for determining what the goals of the state has. o As a result, how it will act at an international level.  Fairly straight-forward, less representative the state is, the greater for the potential for conflict—both domestically and internationally.  Within the state, the idea is that handful of individuals run the government, if it’s an aristocracy or a monarchy or a tyranny of some sort…they will potentially abuse the population.  Non-democratic forms of government do not rule for the common good Source of potential conflict.  As regards to relations outside of the state, if a handful of individuals run the government in IR, they will be more aggressive than their behavior towards others. o Why is this the case? Self-evident. o Why would a non-democratic system be more belligerent?  They do not carry the cost of war.  Wars are waged, soldiers are drawn from the general population, the soldiers and population carries the cost of war.  Given the high cost of war, military aggression tends to result from the unrepresentative interest of the few.  Republican version of highlighting importance of Liberalism.  Is there anything intrinsically belligerent about non- republic forms of government?  They are inductively derived. From the historical record trying to abstract generalizations which will apply to the future. There is nothing wrong with that. It’s problematic…. Kant (grandfather of Liberalism) and Perpetual peace. o What is the nature of (AUDIO RECORDING) Issues:  Representative institutions allow for the expression of people’s views and thus avoidance of war, meant to provide expression of self-determination—idea here is avoidance of war.  Natural assumption is most people don’t want to fight. We are not in the desire to dominate… o Doyle—gets Machiavelli wrong (he’s not a liberal)  Machiavelli is a republican and a neoroman  Ideal is the roman republic  Not a liberal ideal o For the Republicans, citizen is an ambitious and driven by glory—class conflict within the city or international politics.  You want to harness by creating assemblies and senates to reflect the ideas of those citizens—to avoid social conflict within the city.  You can take that tension and turn it to other states, express through conquest (imperialism)  You all can’t be rulers  None of this has anything to do with liberalism.  Republican institutions and democracy are not incompatible with conquest/imperialism.  Idea of Progress—assumption that history will repeat itself for political institutions  Kant’s Perpetual peace Republican Liberalism:  Highlights how individuals allow individuals to peacefully settle their disputes.  Highlights how citizens are ultimately responsible for political decisions  Self-determination  Kant from Machiavelli o Bc we have self-determination ( we are responsible for our own policy decisions) we will be less inclined towards aggressive foreign policy o With other responsibilities in form of government. o Kant is working with the ideas of citizens in liberalism— citizens have rights and we shall protect them.  Representative institutions, the rule of law and the impartial judication of disputes.  Individuals want to determine the goals and achieve them— we want to lead the ―good life‖.  Another reason republicans won’t pursue war is because war is an obstacle for the ―good life‖.  Republics will defend themselves if they have to. o Basis of what’s been called ―democratic peace.‖  In terms of IR politics, gov. will foster international institutions that will provide for the same peaceful resolution of problems.. at least amongst themselves. o Expect to see a federation or a league arising. o Prescriptive aspect of this concept…  Democracies should try to promote and increase number of republican institutions around the world.  Individual interests determine the nature of foreign policy. o Want to achieve their ends o You vote for your minister of parliament because they reflect your interests. o Liberal republicanism that Kant and Doyle talk about is understood in terms of the ―good life‖ , life, culture and trade. o Individual interests are expressed in institutions. o War and peace reflect regime type. **important*  They have stood on its head everything the realist has said.  IR politics is being driven by domestic-level politics. o Regime type determines outbreak of war and peace. Commercial Liberalism:  Primarily focuses on types of trade.  Idea is that economic development domestically fosters incentives for peace. o Promotes economic ties between nations.  As industrialization got in way, individuals have ot make an adjustment to the increasing discipline of capitalist th production. 19 century) o Reward for doing so is the benefits of being productive, material well-being/welfare.  Along these lines, there is a push for political reform. o Liberal bourgeoisies want some say in how Gov. is run. o Workers begin to push for the same thing. o Individuals who are behind, they push for the extension of franchise or greater democracy.  Greater say in what’s going on politically.  In IR, what beings to happen is that the economic links begin to be formed between different states based on economic exchange and the idea of free trade. o Foster free-trade, regulations and economic restrictions have to be abolished or lowered. (Free flow of capital, labour…)  Promotion of economic liberalism.  Ultimately, what arises is that there are economic interests that transcend borders… economic interdependence between states.  Along these lines, interdependence is profitable for the groups and individuals engaged in it; also profitable for the state— taxes, etc.  Ultimately, the extensions of these arguments is that economic development should be encouraged because they bring economic well-being to the world.  The idea of war is seen as being unprofitable, cultivating these ties of eco development, raising the standard of living…why would you want to ruin this? o War is unprofitable  Interrupts economic development/ties  Destroys productivity and commerce  War is irrational (from this perspective)  States will learn to stop fighting once they learn how great the loss of commerce is, in exchange for war.  War makes no sense from a cost-benefit perspective.  Commercial liberalism focuses on economic issues. (Doyle reading) Note: often thought that these two views, the advent of republican institutions, and economic liberalism go hand in hand. o If you encourage both of them, you’re making the world a better place. You see the tie by Kant, Doyle does this as well.  These two things don’t logically go together. There is no necessary … between eco development and democracy. Things to think about: What are the ties between political institutions and war and peace? What are the ties between eco institutionalism and war and peace? Should we encourage the advent of liberal? _________________________________________________ th Sept 26 2012 Regarding second essay question: doyle’s = international liberalism Kant is a mouth piece of Doyle  he adopted Kant’s theory as his own. For the anarchy question: specific or broad specific perspective? BOTH. Easiest way is to focus on one of the theories we’re talking about and specific writers. Start off with a characterization then use the readings to elaborate. be careful about distinguishing classical and neo-realism. Neo-Liberalism:  approach that grew in the 80s o there are as many interpretations of liberalism (divergence of opinions of these concepts) o analytical approach of liberalism  response to neo-realism (structural theory that is identified with theory of realism)…so we have to have neo-liberalism.  evolves out of critique  Highlights the importance of international institutions o helping to overcome uncertainty in IR  uncertainty that goes with security issues or issues of trade or cultural concerns.  what this means is that the structural aspect of neo-liberalism: distinguish itself from the other forms  Sources of foreign policy?  Idea of Anarchy—idea of the security dilemma  Idea of collective goods/ collective action procedures.  Idea of international regimes  IR is defined by lack of hierarchy—no authority or power, role of gov’t o settle disputes among actors o interpreted by realists o making you insecure makes me secure—arm’s raec o  Neo Realists unpack the security dilemma in terms of a prisoner’s dilemma. o You can’t depend on others. o Interests are defined as a self-interest. o realists tend to discount common interests o Interest is usually defined in terms of the short-run  Act now, or suffer the consequences.  Neo-Liberalism contests all of this: o degree of the security dilemma—is it really that bad? o test of primacy of self interest? Are they not mutually shared interests? o contests the presumption toward short term thinking. o Security dilemma is important but not all incompetent. o Highlights importance of mutually beneficial goals. o Tries to indicate how actors can think in terms of the long-run goals. o What they do is they accept the idea of anarchy—no hierarchy in IR  does not preclude cooperation.  Often do not stress as formally  do not take into account domestic level of interpretations as others do..  Basic observation: o despite the condition of anarchy, states do cooperate.  tend to cooperate more than they don’t.  analogy: think about the waiting tables— asshole who gave you the hard time. This is how liberal’s approach idea of anarchy. They focus on war, we tend to forget the instances of cooperation (not sexy ;))  how does cooperation arise? o in a modern state system, states don’t die very frequently—survival is not a big of a deal as we presume.  States persist.  May witness regime changes but the actual states themselves persist.  The security dilemma is less acute. o They ask us to reconsider idea of prisoner’s dilemma  the idea of squealing …  only makes sense is if it’s a one shot game.  non-cooperation only makes sense if it’s only one interaction.  They conclude that if we extend our interaction with other actors.. the outcome will be better.  if we can engage each other repeatedly, it makes sense to cooperate.  Structure of preferences..  Defection leads to the third outcome, cooperation leads to the second best outcome.  Tit for tat strategy—players match each other’s responses.  If one cooperates, other will too—until one decides not to.  Better reflects what happens in IR. o states do cooperate  until someone stops cooperating  then they both stop.  Doesn’t tell us WHEN they will cooperate.  The principle that plays is the idea of reciprocity… states respond to each other in a reciprocal manner. o As long as the response is a good one, the cooperation will continue as long as possible.  and can be extended for long-term.  Liberals acknowledge the security dilemma- but do not consider it the hallmark of IR o cooperation is contingent upon what other actors do. o in the long run, cooperation pays off.  Collective goods—goods or ends that all actors can enjoy without sacrificing anything. o ends that are not zero sum o do not join one party for the expense of another. o ex. Clean air, public parks, police protection—goods that everyone can enjoy without suffering. o Regarding provision of collective goods there are problems that attend the enjoyment:  there are incentives to enjoy it a bit more than other people  who provides collective goods?  at the domestic level, the gov’t provides it. (has regulations for clean water, and air, and security)  IR level is provided by ?  Regarding enjoyment:  if all can enjoy it, why contribute?  What’s the incentive to help provide the public goods?  Issue of the free-rider  why contribute when you can enjoy something for free?  Someone who benefits from the provision of the collective good without paying or contributing anything. o free-riding wins itself to a form of cheating.  ultimately, it impacts the
More Less

Related notes for POLI 244

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

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

Sign up

Join to view


OR

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.


Submit