Grieco: Realist International Theory and the Study of World Politics

Grieco, JM. 1997. “Realist International Theory and the Study of World Politics.” New Thinking in International Relations Theory 163-201.

The claim is that, ever since the publication of Morgenthau’s seminal book in 1948, realism has been the most important school of thought in international relations. “This is because realist theory addresses the key questions in international relations: What are the causes of conflict and war among nations, and what are the conditions for cooperation dn peace among them?” (163). “Precisely because it engages these fundamental international problems, other scholars, seeking to develop alternative analytical approaches to international affairs...have often defined their theoretical perspectives and research programs in large measure through their opposition to one or more elements of realist theory” (163). “In this chapter I present a critical appreciation of realist international theory” (163). “The view put forward in that section is that realism does in fact provide substantial leverage on many aspects of world politics…in the third and final main section of the chapter I identify two serious conceptual ambiguities and tensions in realist theory and offer a discussion of possible lines of analysis that might address these problems and thus allow realist theory to provide a more effective understanding of politics among nations” (164).

Realist Assumptions:

State is the central focus of enquiry. People fight for what they want, against what they do not want in groups. This insight is provided by R. Gilpin. “For realists, the fundamental unit of political organization for the past several centuries ahs been, and at present it is, the nation-state” (164). While there are other international actors, the state is the one that conditions the ability of all others to act.

Anarchy:

“Realism’s second core assumption is that states coexist in a context of international anarchy, that is, the absence of a reliable central authority to which they can appeal for protection or the redress of grievances” (164). States must be self-help agents. They operate in a world where they can never be sure of the intentions of the other agents. This is a world of constant potential conflict and war.

States are rational, autonomous and unitary:

States’ rationality is goal oriented, these goals are consistent and these goals are achieved through the construction of strategies.

Secondly, states are able to pursue the national interest without undue distracting influence from powerful groups domestically.

Finally, states are able to act unitarily and coherently in relation to other countries.

Propositions:

States are Defensive Actors:

Security is the states’ central goal.

States are Defensive Positionalists:

Relative power gains encourage states to be positionally focused. States are interested in maximizing their relative power capabilities and minimizing the gains of others.

State Interest in Independence and Autonomy:

States seek to be free to pursue their defensive positionalism. States seek to be independent and autonomous.

These assumptions and propositions are then explored vis-à-vis historical examples.

Realists have three main clusters of explanations that derive from the above assumptions:

Balancing: “…if the security of independence of some states are threatened by the growth in power of one state or a group of states, the threatened states, according to realist theory, will respond to that challenge by seeking to take actions that mitigate or offset the growth in power of the rising side” (169-70). In contrast, states may bandwagon, but not in the above example.

System Polarity and Stability:

Stability is a product of the amount of poles in the international system. Waltz says that a multipolar system is prone to conflict.

Hypothesized Constraints on Cooperation:

It is not outside of the border of this theory for states to form alliances to fight common enemies. However, there are constraints, like cheating. Also, because the world is self-help, alliances are also difficult to form. Finally, there is a difficulty in cooperating because of the logic of relative gains.

How, then, could cooperation take place? Through a hegemon. For example, Gilpin and Krasner assert that a liberal international order will arise only if there is a state that is strong enough and willing enough to take on that responsibility.

Criticisms:

Change: Realism can not account for international change.

Does not look at the domestic.

(These are both followed by lengthy explanations of possible Realist responses to these criticisms)

Two other issues that may be more problematic, from Grieco’s perspective: The EU.

Secondly: “Does anarchy lead ‘normal’ states to be security or power maximizers, and is there an observable difference between the two goals?” (186).