Cohen: The Question of Imperialism

Cohen, B., The question of imperialism, Basic Books.

Ch. VII: Toward a General Theory of Imperialism

“Chapter I suggested that there are two issues of particular importance to any study of the subject of imperialism: (1) the form of dominance-dependence relationships, and (2) the force(s) giving rise to and maintaining them” (229). While imperialism can take many forms, is there a common essence that can be uncovered? Is there a taproot?

The core of imperialist logic, according to Cohen, is clearly not rooted in radical Marxist accounts of under consumption or the changing composition of capital. “The theories are all much too highly deterministic” (230). “All through history there have been innumerable examples of imperialism having nothing to do with the international capitalist economy or the presumed needs of its most advanced constituents” (230). “In short, Marxist and radical theories of economic imperialism do not stand up to close analytical scrutiny. All that needs to be said about them has by now been said. As intellectual constructs, they are like elaborate sand castles—a few waves of the incoming tide, and much of their substance gradually dissolves and washes away” (231).

While Cohen glibly dismisses any radical economic explanation for the drive towards imperialism, he also promotes his own universal understanding of the cause of international economic expansion and dominance: power politics. However, this drive to power should not simply be stated and left without an explanation. That is the mistake of many scholars who posit power politics as being the cause of war, etc., but who have not sufficiently explained why this is the case. Cohen argues that this logic derives from the international system level of analysis, and not the state-based level of analysis. The system level contains a homogenizing characteristic: anarchy.

Anarchy creates a situation in which states can never feel completely secure. This insecurity arises from the fact that no state can ever insure themselves against the actions of another state. The account is a very standard structural realist one. Marxist accounts fail because they look at the level of the state for international affairs explanations, and this simply misses the larger picture. The problem for states comes when they try to “operationalize” this insecurity in foreign policy.

The comparison is drawn between states in anarchy and firms in an oligopolistic market to demonstrate how foreign policy can be derived from this position of insecurity. In an oligopolistic market there is insecurity and vulnerability. Each firm would like to have a monopoly, but they understand this to be unfeasible. Firms must scheme and plan for their long-term stability.

States in this situation want to avoid dependence. One way to accomplish this is through dominance. “This means that imperialistic behavior is a perfectly rational strategy of foreign policy” (242).

This is the core of the argument. Cohen then goes on to list some possible criticisms of his argument: too narrow, too broad and too shallow (three iterations).