Grieco: Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation

Grieco, J., 1988. Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism. International Organization, 42(3), 485-507.

“For realists, international anarchy fosters competition and conflict among states and inhibits their willingness to cooperate even when they share common interests. Realist theory also argues that international institutions are unable to mitigate anarchy’s constraining effects on inter-state cooperation. Realism, then, presents a pessimistic analysis of the prospects for international cooperation and of the capabilities of international institutions” (485).

The main response to realism has come from liberals and Grieco divides this into three types: early functionalist integration theory, later neofunctionalist regional integration theory and even later interdependence theory. These theories were then followed by liberal institutionalism, which argues that, while anarchy is an structuring variable, states are still able to find ways to cooperate at times.

“This essay’s principal argument is that, in fact, neoliberal institutionalism misconstrues the realist analysis of international anarchy and therefore it misunderstands the realist analysis of the impact of anarchy on the preferences of actions of states. Indeed, the new liberal institutionalism fails to address a major constraint on the willingness of states to cooperate which is generated by international anarchy and which is identified by realism. As a result, the new theory’s optimism about international cooperation is likely to be proven wrong” (487).

Much of this debate centers around conceptions of cooperation and the limits to cooperation. Institutionalists argue that states will be most concerned that the state that they are cooperating with will “cheat”, as there is no enforcement mechanism. Grieco argues that, yes, while cheating is crucial, one aspect of the formula is missing in the neoliberal institutionalist account: that states will seek both relative and absolute gains. The liberal focuses on the absolute gains to be taken by states in cooperation. The realist emphasizes the fear that states may have in cooperation: they do not want their counterpart to gain more than they gain. This logic is rooted in the assumption of state survival and rationality.

Five properties of realism: states are the actors, international structure penalizes states who are not exclusively looking out for their interest, anarchy is an organizing principle, states in such a situation are worried about security and power, and institutions only roughly affect the above equation.

Liberals have argued against the above assumptions for a variety of reasons. Earlier funcationalism argued against, for example, centering theories on the state. However, the later neoliberal institutionalism began to take on many of the assumptions of realism, though with clearly different consequences. Thus, you have scholars positing theories that begin with basically the same premise, rational states in anarchy, but finding ways for cooperation to emerge.

Grieco does not see this as being legitimate, as the kind of state the two schools of thought envisage are quite different. The liberal state is an atomistic, anthropormorphised actor who is, “only concerned with their self interest”. For the liberal, this equation eventually becomes cooperation, as states can find ways to work together in anarchy. For the liberal, the biggest problem is cheating. Realists reject this focus on cheating as missing the main point about anarchy as an organizing principle. Anarchy does not simply mean that there is no one to enforce treaties, etc. Anarchy means that there is no guarantee that another state will not try to kill you. This leads states to directly worry about relative gains in place of absolute gains.