LIBERAL AND NEO-LIBERAL APPROACH

INTRODUCTION

Liberalism, also known as pluralism, projects a different image of world politics as compared
to Realism. However, much like Realism, it too has a rather long tradition. There are many
strands of liberalism but some of the common themes that run through the liberal thinking
are:

1. Human beings are perfectible

2. Democracy is necessary for that perfectibility to develop
3. Ideas do matter.

Unlike the Realists, the liberals have enormous belief in human progress and the faculty of
reason that each individual is endowed with. Accordingly, liberals reject the Realist notion
that war is the natural condition of world politics. They also question the idea that the state is
the main actor on the world political stage, although they do not deny that it is important.
But they do see multinational corporations, transnational actors such as terrorist groups, and
international organizations as central actors in some issue-areas of world politics. In relations
between states, liberals stress the possibilities for cooperation, and the key issue becomes
devising international settings in which cooperation can be best achieved. The picture of
world politics that results from the liberal view thus is of a complex system of bargaining
between many different types of actors. Military force is still important but the liberal agenda
is not as restricted as is the Realist one. Liberals see national interest in much more than
military terms, and stress the importance of economic, environmental, and technological
issues.
LIBERAL APPROACH TO "THE STUDY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS”
Liberal approach to the study of international politics has its roots in the
development of liberal political theory in the 17th Century. John Locke,
widely considered the first liberal thinker of the 17th Century, saw a great
potential for human progress in modern civil society and capitalist
economy.
Liberals are generally of the view that the period since the late 17th
Century constitutes a historical watershed during which a multifaceted
process of modernization has introduced or enhanced the possibility of a dramatic
improvement in the moral character and material wellbeing of humankind. Progressive view
was reinforced by the liberal intellectual revolution, which had great faith in human reason
and rationality.
Some of the important underlying assumptions of the liberal approach to the study of
international politics can be identified as follows:
I) Individuals are the primary international actors: Liberals put the individual at the center of
the universe and all progress is measured in terms of the interests of the individuals as the
two are perceived as inextricably intertwined. In other words, progress for liberals has always
meant progress for individuals.. This does not mean that states are relegated to marginal
status in the liberal perspective. Far from it, the Liberals view states as the most important
collective actors in our present era, but they are seen as pluralistic actors whose interests and
policies are determined by bargaining among groups.
2) State’s interests are dynamic: Liberals are of the viewpoint that the interests of the states
are not static but dynamic. State’s interests keep changing with time because individual values
and the power relations among interest groups keep evolving over time. These ideas can be
traced back to Locke, Rousseau, and Kant. As far as the specific interests of the states are
concerned, liberals accept that state survival and autonomy are important, but they are
viewed as secondary interests to the primary interests of the individuals.
3) Both individual and state interests are shaped by a wide variety of domestic and
international conditions: - Liberals are of the view that the interests of both individuals and
states are affected by a host of factors at the domestic and international levels .At the domestic
level, factors like the nature of economic and political systems, patterns of economic
interactions, and personal values may play decisive role. At the international level, presence
of factors like technological capabilities, patterns of interactions and interdependencies,
transnational sociological patterns, knowledge, and international institutions allow states to
affect each other in different ways. States-the predominant collective actors-are viewed by
the liberals as entities that are embedded in both their own societies and the international
system, and their interests and policies are affected by conditions in both arenas. However,
there is a significant difference between the Realists and the liberals on the matter of
institutions and political hierarchy in the international system. The liberals feel very
uncomfortable with the Realists' rather simplistic conception of the international system as
anarchical. In sharp contrast to the Realists, liberals are of the view that given the
pervasiveness and wide influence of the network of international institutions it would be
naive not to integrate it into an overall conception of the international system.
4) Mutual interests can sustain cooperation in the international system: With the growth of
liberal democracies, interdependencies, knowledge, international social ties, and international
institutions, the liberals have come to believe that cooperation can be possible among states
without resorting to coercive means. Unlike the Realists who believed that existence of a
hegemonic (dominant) power is a prerequisite to cooperation, the liberals are of the view that
cooperation can be achieved through non-coercive bargaining based on identification of
mutual interests.
NEO-LIBERAL APPROACH TO THE STUDY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
What distinguishes the neo-liberals from the traditional liberal scholars? Do the neo-liberals
present a contrasting view of world politics from that of the traditional liberals? What is it
that necessitates the prefix neo before liberalism? Are the neo-liberals closer to the Realists
and Neo-realists in their orientation than to the traditional liberals?
The most important distinguishing feature of the neo-liberals is their declining confidence in
human progress. Unlike the traditional liberals, the neo-liberals are far less optimistic about
progress and cooperation. This, however, does not mean that they are as pessimistic as the
Realists or Neo-realists. As a category, the term neo-liberal refers to post-war liberal scholars
who retained much of the belief of the traditional liberals except perhaps sharing their
optimism. Liberals [neo-liberals] have not wanted to be branded as idealists as were many
interwar liberals; the international events of this century (including two world wars and the
Cold War) have made them wary about being too optimistic, and, in keeping with the ethos of
contemporary social science, many have felt more comfortable about explaining than
predicting.
In the academic world, neo-liberal generally refers to neo-liberal institutionalism or what is
now called institutional theory. However, in the policy world, Neo-liberalism has a different
connotation.
In the domain of foreign policy, a neo-
liberal approach seeks to promote free
trade or open markets and Western
democratic values and institutions.. This
brand of liberalism (Neo-liberalism)
draws its ideological strength from the
belief that all financial and political
institutions created in the aftermath of
the Second World War have stood the
test of time, which provides the
foundation for contemporary political
and economic arrangements.
CONCEPT OF WORLD ORDER
There is no single homogenous conception of order in world politics. Instead, one comes across
competing conceptions of order in international relations theory.
The Realists' conception of international order is state-centric which emphasises stability and
peace among states. The elements of such an international order are based on the traditional
models of order such as the structure of the balance of power, sovereignty, forms of
diplomacy the role of the great powers.
The concept of world order, as conceptualized by the liberals on the other hand, is a much
wider category in nature and scope. In sharp contrast to the Realists who treat states as the
basic units of order, the liberals take individual human beings as its key units of order and
construct order in terms of rights, justice, and prosperity. Unlike the Realists, the liberals
assert that order world politics emerges not from a balance of power but from the
interactions between many layers of governing arrangements, comprising laws, agreed
norms, international regimes, and institutional rules. The liberal conception of world order
thus clearly has a widening agenda of order that encompasses, among other things, the
relationship between economic and political dimensions, new thinking about security,
debates about the consequences of globalization, the role of human rights, and strategies for
human development. Its central claim is that patterns of integration and interdependence
have become so deeply embedded in the Cold War period, albeit for strategic and geopolitical
reasons, that they now have a self-sustaining momentum that precludes any return to war
and autarch
LIBERAL-INSTITUTIONALISM
The search for liberal-institutional mechanisms to help establish peace and
ensure prosperity through cooperation goes back to the days of the League
of Nations. Woodrow Wilson, the chief proponent of the League of Nations,
is considered to be the first liberal institutionalist who pointed out the
importance of institutions in transforming the international relations from a
"jungle" of chaotic power politics to a "zoo" of regulated and peaceful
interaction. Although the League of Nations experiment turned out to be a
disaster, later developments in the field of international organizations like
the United Nations and European Union have rekindled new hope in the philosophy of liberal
institutionalism.
Liberal institutionalists attack the Neo-realists for focusing exclusively on conflict and
competition and thus minimizing the chances for cooperation even in an anarchic
international system. The main claim of the liberal institutionalist is that international
institutions and regimes help promote cooperation between states.
What are institutions and regimes?
According to Keohane, institutions may include organisations,
bureaucratic agencies, treaties and agreements, and informal
practices that states accept as binding, regimes, as social institutions
that are based on agreed rules, norms, principles, and decision-making
procedures. These govern the interactions of various state and non-
state actors in issue areas such as the environment or human rights.

Varieties of treaties, trade agreements, scientific and trade protocols,

market protocols, for the liberal institutionalists, help govern an anarchic and competitive
international system and they encourage, and at times require, multilateralism and cooperation
as a means of securing national interests.
Core Assumptions of Neo-liberal Institutionalism

Although the neo-liberal institutionalists do concede that states are key actors in international
relations, they refuse to buy the argument of the Realists who believe that states are the only
significant actors. According to the neo-liberal institutionalists, states are rational or
instrumental actors that always seek to maximise their interests in all issue areas.
Neo-liberal institutionalists further believe that in the present-day competitive environment,
states seek to maximize absolute gains through cooperation as rational behaviour leads them
to see value in cooperative behaviour. States are thus less concerned with gains or advantages
by other states in cooperative arrangements.
 However, the neo-liberal institutionalists believe that the biggest obstacle to successful
cooperation comes from the fear of non-compliance or the possibility of cheating by states.
Such fears primarily emanate from the sovereign status enjoyed by the states in the
international system leading to a general lack of trust among the states. However, the neo-
liberal institutionalists believe that such fears of non-compliance and cheating can be allayed,
if not eliminated altogether, through creation of institutions in the international system.
Neo-liberal institutionalists recognise that cooperation may be harder to achieve in areas
where leaders perceive they have no mutual interests, it is believed that states in all
likelihood will be willing to shift loyalty and resources to institutions once these are perceived
as mutually beneficial and if they provide states with increasing opportunities to secure their
international interests.
FUNCTIONALISM
David Mitrany, the most prominent proponent of the Functionalist school of
thought is accredited with fashioning this alternative view of international
politics in response to the security/conflict conception of the Realist and Neo-
realist scholars. Mitrany argues that greater interdependence in the form of
transnational ties between countries could lead to peace. He is of the view
that cooperation should be arranged by technical experts and not by
politicians. Some of the other important Functionalists like Joseph Nye, Ernst
Haas, John Burton, and Christopher Mitchell have immensely contributed to the Functionalist
tradition of international relations theory.
Presented as an operative philosophy that would gradually lead to a peaceful, unified, and
cooperative world, Functionalism is widely regarded as the most insightful critique of the
Realist framework of international politics. The main concern of the Functionalists is to develop
piecemeal non-political cooperative organisations, which will not only help establish peace
and secure prosperity but also render the practice of war obsolete eventually.. Aware of the
fact that governments have vested interests and that nation-states will not be dismantled
voluntarily, the Functionalists advocate a gradual approach toward regional or global unity.
This, they believe, might eventually help isolate and render obsolete the rigid institutional
structures of nation-states.
Functionalists' prime concern is with developing piecemeal cooperative organizations at the
regional level in non-political areas like economic, technical, scientific, social and cultural
sectors where the possibility of forging effective cooperation among the states appears to be
highly practical. These apparently non-political sectors are collectively referred to, in the
Functionalist literature, as functional sectors where the possibility of opposition or resistance
appears minimal. This is based on the assumption that efforts to establish functioned
organisations at the micro level in non-political sectors such as energy production and
distribution, transportation and communication control: health protection and improvement,
labour standards and exchanges etc. are least likely to be met with opposition. There is a
greater possibility of successful functioning of such non-political functional organisations as
these can be of mutual advantage to the participating states. The possibility of a higher
success rate of such functional bodies gets further enhanced by the fact that they do not appear
to pose any challenge, at least apparently, to the national sovereignty of the participating
states.
One of the most important assumptions of the Functionalist school is based on the concept of
What is called "spillover" effect. The concept of spillover is similar to that of "demonstration"
effect as used in the discipline of economics. 'The underlying belief of the spillover concept is
that cooperation in one area would open new avenues for similar cooperation in other areas.
For example, successful forging of cooperation in the area of coal and steel production would
spill over into other functional areas like transportation, pollution control etc. Such a process of
cooperation, the Functionalists argue, would eventually lead to political unification of a given
region.
The strength of the Functionalist school of thought lies in the fact that they tend to emphasise
cooperative aspects of international behaviour and sidestep conflictive aspects. In contrast to
the Realists who look at the world in terms of politics of conflict and irrationality, the
Functionalists view the world through the prism of cooperation and reason. The Functionalists
believe that the accumulation of the process of functional organizations would not only help link
people and their interests across national boundaries but would also eventually relegate the
nation-states to the "museum of institutional curiosities".
Neo-Functionalism
In contrast to the Functionalist theory, which seeks to create a New World order in which the
Sovereign states take a back seat, Neo-Functionalism or the integration theory seeks to
create new states through the integration of the existing states. This is achieved initially at
the regional level eventually culminating, in the long run, in the creation of a single world
state. The idea that integration between states is possible if the political process of spillover
facilitates it is basically drawn from the experience of European Union. The neo-Functionalists
thus prefer to emphasize cooperative decision-making processes and elite attitudes in order
to assess the process towards integration.
Ernst Haas is considered to be the chief proponent of this school of thought.
Although Haas builds on Mitrany, he rejects the notion that technical matters
can be separated from politics.

Haas defines integration as "the tendency toward 'the voluntary creation of

larger political units, each of which self-consciously eschews the use of force in
the relations between the participating units and groups". Integration, for
Haas, has to do with getting self-interested political elite to intensify their cooperation- Put
differently, Haas views integration as a process by which the actors concerned begin voluntarily
to give up certain powers and evolve new techniques for tackling common problems and
resolving mutual conflicts.
Joseph Nye carries this theme further when he asserts that regional political
organisations "have made modest contributions to the creation of islands of
peace in the international system". These studies suggest that the way
towards peace and prosperity is to have independent states pool their
resources and even surrender some of their sovereignty to create integrated
communities to promote economic growth or respond to regional problems. What distinguishes
the neo-Functionalists from the Functionalists thus is that they focus primarily on formal
institutions .
SOCIOLOGICAL LIBERALISM/COMMUNICATIONS THEORY
The communications theory in international relations is considered to be an integral part of
what come to be called sociological liberalism strand of thinking. Unlike the Realists who view
international relations exclusively in terms of the study of relations between the governments
of sovereign states, sociological liberals assert that it is also about transnational relations i.e.
relations between people, groups, and organisations belonging to different countries.
James Rosenau defines the underlying assumption of the communication
theory, which builds on the notion of transnationalism, is that as
transnational activities increase, people in distant lands get linked and their
government become more interdependent.

Karl Deutsch is considered to be the chief proponent of the communications

theory, or perhaps more appropriately, communications approach in
international relations. This approach seeks to measure the extent of
communication and transactions between societies by watching the flow of
international transactions, such as trade, tourists, letters, and immigration.
The central argument of the coimmunications approach, as articulated by
Deutsch, is that a high degree of transnational ties betwcen societies would
lead to peacefuIl relations that would amount to more than the absence of war. Such
transactions, the argument goes, will eventually lead to the development of what Deutsch
calls security communities or integrated socio-political systems. Integration in this contex will
develop a "sense of community" that people have come to agree that their conflicts and
problems can be resolved "without resort to large-scale physical force".
INTERDEPENDENCE
The emergence of "trading states" such as Japan and Germany in the post-War period provides
strength to the assumption of the interdependence liberalism. The underlying assumption of
this strand of liberalism is that such trading states tend to refrain from the traditional military
political option of high military expenditure and instead prefer to focus on the trading option
of an intensified international division of labour that increases interdependence. Such an'
assumption received a tremendous fillip in the wake of the end of the Cold War with the trading
option being largely preferred even by very large states. Rosecrance is of the view that the end
of the Cold War has made the traditional military-political option less urgent and thus less
attractive.

The Theory Of Complex Interdependence

The theory of "complex interdependence"

formlulated in the 1970s by Robert Keohane and
Joseph Nye took the logic of interdependence
to a new height. These theorists argue that the
process of modernisation is fast increasing the
level and scope of interdependence between
states. Under conditions of complex
interdependence, transnational actors are
increasingly becoming much important with the consequence that military force has become a
less useful instrument of policy. As a result, international relations are increasingly becoming
more like domestic politics. As Keohane observes: "Different issues generate different
coalitions, both within governments and across them, and involve different degrees of
conflicts. Politics does not stop at the water's edge". The interdependence liberals thus argue
that in most of these conflicts military force is fast becoming redundant. Other sources of non-
military power like "negotiating skills" are increasingly becoming much more important.
Keohane and Nye thus argue that under complex interdependence states are getting more
preoccupied with the "low politics' of welfare and less concerned with "high politics" of national
security, which would eventually pave the way for a world free of all conflicts.
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF COMPLEX INTERDEPENDENCE

Complex interdependence has three main characteristics:

1. Multiple channels connect societies, including: informal ties between governmental elites as
well as formal foreign office arrangements; informal ties among nongovernmental elites
(face-to-face and through telecommunications); and transnational organizations (such as
multinational banks or corporations). These channels can be summarized as interstate,
transgovernmental, and transnational relations. Interstate relations are the normal channels
assumed by realists. Transgovernmental applies when we relax the realist assumption that
states act coherently as units; transnational applies when we relax the assumption that states
are the only units.
2. The agenda of interstate relationships consists of multiple issues that are not arranged in a
clear or consistent hierarchy. This absence of hierarchy among issues means, among other
things, that military security does not consistently dominate the agenda. Many issues arise
from what used to be considered domestic policy, and the distinction between domestic and
foreign issues becomes blurred. These issues are considered in several government
departments (not just foreign offices), and at several levels. Inadequate policy coordination on
these issues involves significant costs. Different issues generate different coalitions, both
within governments and across them, and involve different degrees of conflict. Politics does
not stop at the waters’ edge.
3. Military force is not used by governments toward other governments within the region, or
on the issues, when complex interdependence prevails. It may, however, be important in
these governments’ relations with governments outside that region, or on other issues.
Military force could, for instance, be irrelevant to resolving disagreements on economic issues
among members of an alliance, yet at the same time be very important for that alliance’s
political and military relations with a rival bloc. For the former relationships this condition of
complex interdependence would be met; for the latter, it would not.
REPUBLICAN LIBERALISM
Republican Liberals approach the issue of conflict via democracy. The underlying assumption is
that liberal democracies are better equipped to resolve conflicts and less prone to war as these
are based on the foundation of peaceful coexistence and rule of law. They argue that
democracies are far more law-abiding than other political systems. This, however, does not
mean that liberal democracies never go to war. As a matter of fact, democracies have gone to
war as often as have non-democracies. But the underlying argument here is that democracies
rarely fight with each other. Republican liberals are, therefore, generally very optimistic about
the role of democracies in establishing long-term world peace. The obvious question that arises
here is what is it that makes them so optimistic about the prospects of long-term world peace. It
may be useful to look at the observation of Sorensen in this regard who argues that with the
increase in the number of democracies in the world in the recent years, the prospects of a more
peaceful world has brightened . He further argues, international relations
will be characterised by cooperation instead of conflict. Michael Doyle,
perhaps, most systematically addresses the question as to why
democracies are at peace with one another.

He advances three elements to strengthen the claim that democracy leads to peace with other
democracies.
1. First, democracies follow democratic norms of' peaceful resolution of conflicts. Given the
fact that democratic governments are controlled by their citizens who are generally
against war .
2. Second, democracies hold common liberal values which lead to the formation of what
Kant called a "pacific union”. Union, not in the sense of a formal peace treaty,but a zone
 of peace based on the common liberal foundations of all democracies. Such
commonalties tend to encourage peaceful ways of resolving conflicts both at the
domestic and international levels.
3. Thirdly, ever increasing economic cooperation and growing interdependence between
democracies strengthen international peace and minimizes the chances of conflict. In
the pacific union. "The spirit of cooperation " a term coined by Kant, will' result in
mutual and reciprocal gain for those involved in international economic cooperation and
would eventually rendering the practice of war obsolete.