International Relations - Liberal Theory (2/7)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 жов 2014
- Professor Andrew Moravscik from Princeton University discusses Liberal theory
(Part 2 of 7)
Playlist link - • Structural Realism - I...
Transcript link - podcast-admin.open.ac.uk/uploa...
Study a free course on Rights and justice in international relations at the Open University
www.open.edu/openlearn/people-...
Study Q11 BA (Honours) International Studies
www.open.ac.uk/courses/qualifi...
Explore qualifications in Social Sciences with the OU
www.open.ac.uk/courses/find/so...
The Open University is the world’s leading provider of flexible, high-quality online degrees and distance learning, serving students across the globe with highly respected degree qualifications, and the triple-accredited MBA. The OU teaches through its own unique method of distance learning, called ‘supported open learning’ and you do not need any formal qualifications to study with us, just commitment and a desire to find out what you are capable of.
Free learning from The Open University
www.open.edu/openlearn/
For more like this subscribe to the Open University channel
/ @openlearn_ou
Like us on Facebook: / ouopenlearn
Follow us on Twitter: / oufreelearning
who's here because of college International Relations class?
Intro to International Relations..
@elle Nice how is that like bro?
@@seungtaeklee8196 Took the same thing
@elle I feel your pain man, im glad i got out of my class and passed it barely making that B
@elle congrats man, props to you for choosing this as your major.
Liberalism is a theory of international politics that believes the fundamental force in world politics is globalization. And globalization is interdependence between the interests of groups in different societies. Those groups then go to their governments and ask them to regulate globalization in different ways. And those varied demands that come from groups in different societies lead those governments to act in different ways. So that leads to a world system that states with quite varied state preferences about what they want the ultimate outcome of international politics to be. So, you can think of liberalism as a bottom-up theory, where globalization drives different state preferences, and those different state preferences drive what states do.
Liberal theories of international relations start with individuals in groups in society as the basic actors. They represent their interest to states. Now, you could think of those states as cities, even tribes, empires, any kind of politics actors. Although in the modern world, most such political actors are states.
If you believe as liberals do that fundamentals force in international politics is the distribution of social state preferences, then that leads you to look in particular place for the basic forces that drive state behavior. And there are 3 kinds of liberal theory that help you do that.
- Commercial liberal theory
It directs you to look at the interest material of states, it’s in particular their economic interest in managing interdependence in a way that’s profitable to the dominant groups in a society in a given time.
- Ideational liberalism
That focuses you on the ideals and believes of groups in society and their effort to realize those ideals in international relations.
- Republican liberalism
It focuses on domestic institutions, and domestic institutions help select which groups it is in society whose interests and ideals are represented by the state at any point in time. You put those 3 things together, interest, ideas, and institutions, and you get a comprehensive view of the different factors that influence what the preferences of states are. And therefore, in the liberal view, what they want. And therefore, what they do.
Some people think that liberal theory is unparsimonious. They say you’re trying to explain preferences. Then you’ve got these three types of preferences : commercial, Republican, and ideational liberalism, and then sub-theories within it. Isn’t that very complicated ? I’m sure my friend john Mearsheimer who talks about realism will say, I’ve just got 5 principles. I could do it much more simply. I think a theory needs to be as simple or complicated as the material it’s trying to study. The world is a diverse place, we need a theory that can handle that. The test of a good theory is whether or not it generates particular mid-range claims at the level of things like the democratic peace hypothesis, or theories of trade, or explanations of how countries comply with international organizations, that are relatively simple and relatively powerful. Based on that criterium, the liberal theory is a powerful and relatively simple theory. And that’s the criterium I think is most pragmatic, most useful, and it’s the one I use.
The distinctive aspect of liberal theory is its ability to explain a wide variation in outcomes that we actually see in the international system. So liberal theories are extremely powerful at explaining cooperative outcomes in the international system because it can predict the conditions under which countries have convergent interests. For example, in the post-war international economic system where countries had expanding interests in mutually beneficial trade, we’ve seen the growth of international organizations to manage international trades such as the WTO and the European Union to do that job. It’s also able to explain, as I mentioned before, the democratic peace phenomena that democracies tend to cooperate amongst each other and not go to war with each other’s. At the same time, it’s capable of explaining in a very differentiated way when states go to war, to predict circumstances which they do. For example, liberals would predict that democratic and non-democratic states, or states with opposed ideologies (communist and non-communist states) or states with different competing visions of religious future for the world would be more likely to go to war than other sorts of states.
This is in contrast to a realist theory. If you compare realism to liberalism, realism argues that the cause of war and peace can be seen in the distribution of power. Realist such as Hans Morgenthau and John Mearsheimer argue that the causes of war and pace can be explained by the distribution of coercive power. Notice that liberal are quite different, they argue that the causes of states behavior lie in the distribution of state preferences. This is something that realists affirmatively deny. They argue that it really doesn’t matter what motivation states have, what intentions they have, what domestic regimes they have, what ideologies they have. States will act the same on the basis of what distribution of power exists in the international system. That’s quite a radical hypothesis, that Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany and Franklin Roosevelt’s USA and Churchill’s Britain will all act the same given the same amount of power. Liberals find that absurd. We believe that in fact, those domestic differences really matter, and history does bare us out.
It’s often thought that realist theories are systemic theories. And liberal theories are domestic theories. This is a distinction that Kenneth Waltz introduced into the literature. I disagree with this distinction. Both liberal theories and realist theories are systemic theories in the sense that Waltz used them. What is a systemic theory ? It’s a theory that says that the cause of state behavior lies in the configuration of characteristics of states. The only difference between realist and liberalism theories in this regard is the particular characteristic that these theories choose to emphasize. For realist theories that characteristic is coercive power. And the distribution of coercive power across the international system is what determines what each state does. For liberals, the critical characteristic is the determination of social preferences and state preferences across the international system. The critical difference is that one is about coercive power and the other one is about social preferences.
One might think that US-China relations, great power, superpower relations, is the last lace we should look for liberal theory to be affective. But in fact, I think it works very well in this case. If we look at Western policy toward China, the first thing to look about it is that the main line of Western policy, the major emphasis of it is engagement. Our bet with regard to China in the US and in the Western world, is that by trading with China, by opening China up, we will make China a more Pacific country. A country that’s easier to deal with because it will become richer, more educated, and more agreeable in every regard. That’s the main line of Western Policy. Now it’s true that Western policy also has certain elements that might be better explained by other theories. For example, we do balance China to a certain extent and realistic might point that out. We do try to integrate China into international organizations. And an institutionalist might point that out. We do even try to socialize Chinese officials unto thinking a different way about international relations. And a constructivist might try to point that out.
But the main wager that we’re placing with regards to China is that economic development, domestic regime change, and changes in ideas, fundamental ideas about legitimacy in China, will make it a country that we can deal with over the long term. In fact, that’s how the whole process got started. We didn’t really start dealing with China as a partner that we could deal with across the full range of policies until Mao was replaced by Deng Xiaoping. And that was a domestic change in China, a fundamental change in the purposes of that regime which led to a change in our relationship with it. I don’t think realist or institutionalists, or constructivists can really give a coherent account of that. But it follows directly from liberal theory, which tells you that when regimes fundamentally change their purposes, foreign policy changes follow.
Thanks!
LITERAL KING
Big thanks.
thxxx
Thank you！！
thats the face I guess I make when coming out from a slightly dark room to the outside where there´s strong sun.
but foreverr
Your boy doesn't blink O_O
haha now I can't get what he's saying cause i'm trying to see when he will blink.
True dat.
at 1:56 it seems like he blinks
kkkkk true. is he a person?
3:15 he blinks as well
he doesnt blink. it kinda creeps me out. but i really like the video!
This so so clear and helpful! no single slide but really concise
damn..
nice rhyme
he looks so calm
Instead of just expecting China to change, its long overdue that the US change too. They must negotiate, not engage in a sort of Prisoner's Dilemma
so true bestie
Good explanation. His Liberal Theory of Intl Politics article is worth a read if you want a really immersive liberal argument.
Have to read it for Uni but i'm struggling because its very difficult to wrap your head around if you're not a native speaker.
- -YouLose84- - same. that is why i came here
@@frauleinmarlenschka6891 Wo studierst du?
really the best video I have come across in a long time...precise and illustrative
It's propaganda why and how you got to be there, world will get there without Us interference
The best? I guess you've watched only one video in your life. It's so unrealistic, especially part about China. One should never underestimate ambitions of China on global arena.
Andrew Moravscik ~@07:25: “One might think that US-China relations, great power, superpower relations, is the last place we should look for liberal theory to be effective. But in fact, I think it works very well in this case. Our bet with regard to China in the United States and in the Western world is that by trading with China, by opening China up, we will make China a more Pacific country. A country that will be easier to deal with because it will become richer, more educated, and more agreeable in every regard. That’s the main line of Western policy."
If this is the main line of the Western policy and if Professor Andrew felt then that the liberal theory has worked well in the case of US-China relationship, would Professor Andrew feel likewise in 2018 September?
Megh Kalyanasundaram what dont you agree with?
@@mehraeen7015 Dont you read the news?
the same question came up to my mind too
Liberal internationalism is a foreign policy doctrine that supports international institutions, open markets, cooperative security and liberal democracy. At its core, it holds that states should participate in international institutions that uphold rules-based norms, promote liberal democracy and facilitate cooperation on transnational problems (such as environmental problems, arms control and public health).
The link for the transcript leads to a transcript of Mearsheimer speaking about structural realism. :(
Consider it a message.
sure...
hahah good one!!
haha they did me a favor then as i had to look him up next to compare and contrast both of these guys theories in an essay exam
Anyone knows the distinction between liberal theories discussed in this video with "institutionalist" mentioned by Prof Moravscik? I perceive 'institutionalist' as 'neoliberal institutionalism' here...
the difference is that institutionalists still think states themselve act rationally and by waging up the consequences of their actions and that cooperation can help them gain absolute profit over time. liberalists open the "black box" of a state, the prototype, bc institutionalists think every state acts the same. but liberalists believe that states act out of certain believes and out of inner pressure by for example the people, ngos... etc.
awesome!
Superb video - "When regimes fundamentally change their purposes, foreign policy changes follow". Explains everything about US foreign policy.
where can i get those lecture notes please ? I need them
That last illustration about China didn’t age well. Not denying the theory of liberalism, but realism makes more sense.
LSE sent me.
WTF for the love of god BLINK!
😭
Liberty rocks 💙
liberty rocks, yeah!
My exams are after 23 mins...and I'm here watching the video
Confused as to why they said communist and non-communist states if there aren't actually any communist states
You spelt his name wrong! It is ‘Moravcsik’ not ‘Moravscik’ (i.e. swap around the ‘c’ and ‘s’)
I wonder what Prof. Moravscik think about China.
I have an exam on Thursday in IR theories. Can anyone possibly help me with notes? Help someone you never met please haha
what does he mean by "particular mid-range claims"
the ability to merge theory and empirical observation
its good
Alien among us
This isn't really a representation of "liberal theory." It's more of an expression of a synthesis between liberal theory and social constructivism.
Mostly because of the whole Idea of changing the other's system to deal better with them right? Which align more with constructivism if I understand it right
don be so defensive. XD
This professor barely blinks
Can you explain to me, why I haven't got a job?
Cause, I think it's about corruption
I came out with the highest degree possible after the studies - nothing has materialized (secondly you lie)
This is not up for discussion that we should pursue the UN Goals - we end in endless regress if we don't (which is not what we wish for) (by endless regress I mean endless discussion about this and that - so the whole premise for the debate is the agreement on just that - if you guys haven't read, that falls back on you - not me)
This is not up for discussion that we should pursue the UN Goals - we end in endless regress (which is not what we wish for and not in our best self-interest)
Can you explain to me, why I haven't got a job -
Cause, I think it's about corruption
That didnt age well
what the hill i didn't get a think !!
use clear simpale words
Me
Liberal Democracy is dead.
RAAUULLLLL
This theory is so weak. Because it need others theory to compare, besides focus to its theory.
It also generally upholds the status quo, but I think liberalism with constructivism can do some good
Its better than just believing that everyone wanna destroy you and try to dominate the world I guess
I agree with @GabrielDesangles. Realist theory is probably the most reductionist theory in IR.
@Gabriel Desangles I wouldn’t classify countries who want, and are capable of amassing as much power as what US sees itself as having, as everybody. It’s anybody seen as a threat, not everybody, because not everyone can have enough power to be threatening. Most theories are general perspectives shared by individuals, many are valid but incomplete. Best to avoid labels imo.
I think this is a naive and a virtue signaling theory🤣😂
lmao this is imperialism but go off
This is such a twisted, distorted, misleading, way of dealing with reality. Empirical data and history shows this way of thinking destroys.
Care to elaborate?
@@mehraeen7015 Culture always has National character and Roots. An international culture is Impossible - Nikolai Berdyaev.
Trump 2024!