Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: a realist critique of the liberal institutionalism – J.M. Grieco

Résumé du document

The text we have was written by J.M. Grieco in order to compare two main theories in international politics: realism and liberal institutionalism. His main argument is that realism is the best theory and all along the text, he tries to demonstrate it.

First of all, the author quickly summarizes the history of international relations' theories. He explains that Realism (no willingness of states to cooperate) has been the dominant theory for a long time but it has been challenged by liberal institutionalism which was developed in 3 stages: the functionalist theory, then neofunctionalist regional integration theory and finally, interdependence theory. However, all these theories were not enough relevant to overtake realism and a new liberal institutionalist approach was necessary to challenge the dominant one. The author states that this new theory took into consideration a certain number of realists assumption but was more optimistic. He then argues that such theory was based on erroneous assumptions.

The first part of his argumentation is a comparison between realism and liberal institutionalism to show that this challenging theory was invalidated by events in the 1970's. Liberal institutionalists used to refute the 5 main assumptions of realists. Their view was much more pessimistic because they considered that States were able to cooperate to achieve their goals, but it did not necessarily mean they were losing their sovereignty.

Extraits

[...] Firstly, as he states it in his conclusion, empirical studies could be interesting to settle disputes between both theories even if interpretations of these studies would probably differ. The problem is that the author does not really give examples to illustrate his arguments. Another critic we can make is that he really denies international institutions are sometimes able to help states cooperate. Even if he admits that cooperation has sometimes been possible in Europe, he does not speak about obvious examples of international cooperation such as the WTO, the UN The liberal perspective brings important new elements to explain such cooperation. [...]

[...] Indeed, even if they admit that States want to maximize their utility (individualistic and atomistic actors), they do not take into account other states' behavior in the way they take decisions. According to institutionalists, anarchy is lack of government in world politics' whereas realists consider it as the situation when there is no overarching authority to prevent states from using violence. Neoliberal institutionalists argue that in the situation of anarchy, cheating is possible and even profitable for their well-being. On the other side, realists assert that it is not the well-being which is pursued by States; it is above all their own survival. [...]

[...] As a realist, he belies ones of the core beliefs of his own theory, which shows a real lack of coherence In the second part of his demonstration, he explains that a new liberal theory had been elaborated in the 1980's as a response to critics. New liberal institutionalists accepted a certain number of realist's ideas but they maintained that institutions could help states to cooperate and to facilitate peace. They argued that in anarchy states have mixed interests (e.g. Prisoner Dilemma) and that countervailing forces do exist in order to compel states to keep their promises. Hence, long-term cooperation is in their opinion the best strategy. [...]

[...] The risk is to be cheated or to decline in terms of relative gains. In his conclusion, the author argues that realism is considered as the most valid theory in international politics whereas in the same time, neoliberal approach is true when you consider social and economic dimensions. Grieco also explains that there were successful projects in European cooperation in the field of economy. He also states the divergences of view we can notice in these two theories about the durability of cooperation. [...]

[...] In my opinion, we can also imagine that States which are declining prefer to get absolute gains even if their relative gains are less important than other's: it may be better for them to behave in this way than not to do anything. The last critique which is important in my opinion is that the author does not differentiate offensive and defensive realists. When he claims that the only goal of states is to survive, he does not take into account the offensive perspective which considers states want to gain power and conquest territory. References J.M Grieco, "Anarchy and the limits of cooperation" in International Organization 42:3, pp.485-507. [...]