What variables and hypotheses are associated with REALISM? (international relations?

2 Discuss the most important differences between realism liberalism and world system view of international relations with respect to actors motive force and values?

• Answer:

  In extreme brevity: Realism/neorealism: States are the actors playing a rational game in an anarchic international system. They aim for their own self interest, that is typically expressed in terms of power (political, military, economic and so on), and relative gain as compared to other actors. Classical realism explains power as a need, whereas neorealism adds some constraints in terms of power politics and provides further explanation through the international system, using the external structures of the anarchic system as determinants of the power game through mechanisms such as security dilemmas, spiralling models, signals etc. Most often when investigating conflict, realists apply bargaining models and game theory. Read Waltz and Morgenthau for details Liberalism/neoliberalism: States are still the main actors, and are still participating in an anarchic international system but they aim for absolute gain, the maximum possible total output. Thus, while realists contend that power is expressed in relative terms compared to other actors, and thus strengthning another actor is a loss, liberalists consider that power is expressed in absolute terms (and thus, cooperation may bring gains through itself). Another major difference is that liberalism focuses on the connections and interactions as well as interdependence between states in terms of understanding state behavior, while realism explains those interactions solely from the state interest for power. Read Mearsheimer for more. Constructivism is slightly more complex - it focuses on social constructs and ideas and the way they create the relations between states. Individual actors and individual identities create the structure of the system, their social construct (their formation, their internal ideology etc.) will determine how they behave, as will systemic level rules and ideas. States can no longer be defined independently and cannot be considered to be equal and thus act equally - they will act as their nature will dictate (in a very simplified explanation, a democracy will behave different from an authoritarian system), and their nature comes from a large mix of factors, not least the way others have defined it. Furthermore, perceptions, attitudes and social constructs can change and influence the structure, thus altering the behavior of the state (for example, the IMF can alter the way one thinks about economic behavior or poverty, and thus alter the way a state will behave or perceive itself in the international sphere, as can "security complexes" and "securitization" - the process of perceiving a threat). Thus, the state system is a system of ideas, norms and social constructs and behaviors, that is defined and defines the actors, working with conjectures as the main tool for undestanding the international system. It is thus a post-positivist, post-modernist approach, unlike realism or liberalism. See Read Wendt or Buzan for more. World System theory is a marxist based approach. It focuses on the world as being divided in a core (states posessing power and technology and capital) and a periphery (states posessing labor and resources), with the core, for historical reasons, becoming the center of trade and the accumulator of wealth. International relations are structured along these lines - imperialism and colonialism, where the core exploits the periphery becoming two main attributes of the international system. In this approach, the international system is no longer anarchic, it is structured by history and, in a way, by predispositions towards a certain behavior. It is still positivist in approaches. For more of this, read Wallerstein. There's also functionalism and structuralism, as there is feminism in IR, but since you don't want an answer, that's it.