Block-2 Ir Approaches

Evolution of International
System (Up to the World

War-II)
BLOCK 2
APPROACHES
49
Approaches
BLOCK 2 APPROACHES
Block 2 is titled ‘Approaches’ and has four units. The Units in this Block describe
and analyze four major theoretical approaches used in the study the International
Relations (IR). The four approaches are: Realism, Systems Theory, Dependency
Framework and Constructivism. You may ask: why should one study theories?
Theories are important to understand IR, at least for two reasons: (i) Theoretical
frameworks give shape and structure to an otherwise large and shapeless reality;
(ii) Each theoretical perspective allows us to ask some insightful and consistent
questions. Unit 4 deals with Realism. What is Realism? The core element of
Realist theory is Power. Sovereign states seek power for their security; every
state fears attack from other states. Therefore, all states want to accumulate more
and more power. Unit 5 describes Systems framework. What is Systems approach?
Systems theory is a grand narrative. A biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy had
propounded the General Systems Theory (GST). Bertalanffy made two grand
points: Systems’ approach proposes to study a phenomenon in terms of the
wholeness of a System – its self-organization, relationships, and interactions
among its various elements. Secondly, GST intends to explain a System, e.g.
international system, in its full interconnectedness with other Systems – economic
system, technological system, physical system, biological system, ecological
system, etc. Scholars have used Systems approach to study varied subjects –
political science, international relations, economics, sociology, physics and
biology, etc. As for political science and IR, Systems approach originated in the
context of the Cold War; and more so, to comprehend the political processes of
the developing countries. Unit 6 is entitled Dependency Theory. In fact, it is not
a theory because it cannot predict the solution. It is a framework of analysis.
Dependency (dependencia in Spanish) is an important framework that began in
the 1950s by analyzing the economic situation in Latin America. Unit 7 deals
with the Constructivist idea in IR. Constructivism is an IR theory which sees
international relations as a social construct. It emphasizes the role of ideational
factors such as culture, social values, identity, assumptions, rules, and language
in the construction of international relations rather than the material factors such
as military capabilities and economic resources.
50
Realism
UNIT 4 REALISM*
Structure
4.0 Objectives
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Realism: Main Assumptions and their Implications
4.3 Classical Realism
4.4 Neorealism
4.5 Criticism of Realism
4.6 Let Us Sum Up
4.7 References
4.8 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises
4.0 OBJECTIVES
In this Unit, you will be reading about Realism. Realism is one of the theoretical
frameworks to study International Relations and foreign policy of a country. It
is the most dominant among various theoretical approaches to study IR. After
going through this Unit, you should be able to know:
The core assumptions of Realism
Classical Realism and Neorealism
Criticism and relevance of Realism
4.1 INTRODUCTION
It is really interesting to know that there are only two broad shades of contrasting
theories or perspectives about the nature of International Relations. One
perspective is that the International Relations, by its very nature, is conflict ridden.
The other perspective describes IR as essentially being cooperative and peaceful.
Broadly speaking, the principal theoretical approaches to the study IR agree
with one of the above-mentioned assumptions. Then there are other theoretical
frameworks which try to combine and reconcile the two contrasting viewpoints.
Still others criticize these dominant outlooks and offer alternative approaches of
looking at the IR; even change it. The aim and purpose of this Unit is to introduce
you to the importance of national power and the conflict-ridden nature of IR.
Realist School is a long-standing and dominant theoretical tradition in the study
of IR. What follows is a discussion of the following questions: (i) What are the
core theoretical assumptions of Realism? (ii) Who are the principal thinkers who
have shaped Realist School of IR? (iii) Does Realism stand the test of criticisms
and iv) Does it remain relevant in understanding and explaining the contemporary
world?
*
Dr. Ujjwal Rabidas, Dept. of International Studies and History, School of Law, Christ (Deemed
to be University), Bengaluru 51
Approaches
4.2 REALISM: MAIN ASSUMPTIONS AND THEIR
IMPLICATIONS
Assumptions are logical beliefs and are very important as these are building
blocks of a theoretical approach. For example, you assume that man is selfish by
nature; or that he is a social animal who loves to cooperate and live peacefully
with other human beings. These assumptions together help explain a problem
and provide coherence to a perspective or approach to IR. For these reasons, it is
important to know the core assumptions of Realism that it uses as its basic tools
to make sense of the InternationalRelations (Legro and Moravcsik, 1999).
i) States are the Primary Actors in the International System

This assumption of Realism has three expressed meanings: i) International
politics is a domain of conflict between and among sovereign states.
Conflictual interaction among these sovereign states is the core of
international politics. (ii) States in international politics are sovereign, unitary
and rational actors. At least at conceptual level, sovereign states are
supremely powerful, unified with fixed political goals and they do cost-
benefit analyses. (iii) In its interaction with other states, each state seeks to
promote and guarantee its own ‘interest’. The foremost interest of each
state is its own security and expansion of its power. (iv) In order to ensure
its own security, each state seeks to secure and accumulate power. Power
alone deters others from attacking it. In other words, every state is out to
enhance and expand its capability at the cost of other states.
ii) IR is Anarchic in Character

In Realism, ‘anarchy’ defines International Relations. Anarchy means that
there is no “central authority” or “world government” to manage or put in
order the international relations among sovereign states which are distrustful
of each other and which, out of a sense of insecurity, accumulate more and
more power so as to become ‘secure’. ‘Anarchy’ is an assumed political
condition in which there is no world authority to enforce order. This assumed
condition “frees” the state to undertake cost-benefit calculations and act
towards its self-interest or “national interest” by depending solely on its
own capability. Capability – military, technological, economic, and political
– must continue to expand and become formidable; otherwise the state may
risk its life and protection.
iii) Control over Material Resources is Fundamental to World Politics

In order to enhance its capability, every state is constantly striving to gain
maximum control over the material resources and this tendency to control
is fundamental to the world politics. Realism tries to justify this assumption
by linking it with other assumptions that the approach fosters. States are
motivated to have control over material resources because i) there is no
central authority to reasonably distribute the resources among its constituent
units; ii) the material resources are not in abundance; and iii) the material
resources add to the coercive capacity of a state against its counterparts
which is critical in an anarchic political set up. These reasons motivate a
state to acquire more and more capability. Besides E. H. Carr, Hans
52
Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz, a number of other scholars have developed Realism
ideas and insights which constitute the core of Realist School. Of, course,
there are important differences among these scholars; for instance, between
Morgenthau and Waltz. Be that as it may, while certain assumptions and
principles constitute the core of Realism, there are several strands or
categories within Realism.
Three principal assumptions have been stated above. What are the implications
of these and other assumptions? Let us have a look at the following:
i) Sovereign states are the only full actors in international system. Realists
draw from the ideas of Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes had described man as
selfish, rational and calculating. In a similar fashion, a state is selfish, rational
and thinks of its interests first. It feels insecure and remains distrustful of
the intentions of other states who think and behave exactly the same way.
Such a state has the tendency to prepare for war and expand its power at the
cost of another state, so as to guarantee its own security.
ii) With no supranational authority to impose order, international system,

inhabited by such ratioinal, self-centred and distrustful actors, is anarchic.
International system is simply a set of interacting states; each pursuing power
in order to ensure its survival and further aggrandizement. In other words,
anarchy in the international system produces an inherently unstable
condition.
iii) The foremost concern of every state is its security. To ensure its survival
and security, a state tends to accumulate power. As one state gathers more
power, other states fear it. There is the context of power accumulation by
every state and an atmosphere of mutual distrust.
iv) There is expediency in the behaviour of states. States may find it convenient
to follow established international ‘rules’ in the short term, they do so in
order to secure their long term goals viz. security and power. Realists argue
that states will violate these rules as soon as they are no longer convenient
to the state’s pursuit of power. After all, there is no global government to
enforce international law and customs.
v) According to Realism, international system is given shape and stability by

the relative power of its constituent states. This means that the system’s
polarity is an important Realist tool when analysing the nature of
international relations on the global or regional scale. Realism’s model of
the anarchic international system helps it to explain the persistence of war –
defined as large-scale organised violence between two or more international
actors in pursuit of political ends. Realism is a good guide in explaining the
causes of war in international relations. It does so by simplifying the world–
highlighting just those actors and interactions that contribute to its
explanation of international conflict. Realists claim that they understand
the world; that their claims are grounded in actual behaviour of the states
and the ruling elites; therefore Realism is empirical and scientific.
53
Approaches Check Your Progress Exercise 1
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) See the end of the Unit for tips for your answer.
1) Describe and analyze the main assumptions of Realism and their
implications.
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
4.3 CLASSICAL REALISM

Realism has inherited a long and rich intellectual tradition. Its principal claims
can be found in important works from Greece, Rome, India, and China. Scholars
suggest that Greek philosopher Thucydides’ History of The Peloponnesian War
illustrates Realism’s scepticism about the restraining effects of morality.
Thucydides notes that what is ‘right’ matters only between equals; otherwise
strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. Kautilya’s in his
Arthashastra is concerned with the survival and expansion of the state. Kautilya
instructs the ruler in the usefulness of balance of power system and carving out
spheres of influence. The Italian political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli (1469–
1527) advised the ruler to be strong and efficient and be concerned primarily
with power and security. Such a ruler is not bound by individual morality. Any
action that is deemed important for the survival of the state carries with it a built-
in justification. Realists draw a lot from Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and his
notion of a ‘state of nature’. Like Hobbes’s man in the ‘state of nature’, modern
state is a rational, calculating actor, concerned primarily with its own security
and aggrandizement. In the absence of an absolute ruler (Leviathan) to enforce
order and punish violators, Hobbes’s supreme and self-centred individual pursues
without restraints whatsoever his interest by constantly engaging in conflict.
The individual in the state of nature lives a life which is ‘solitary, poor, nasty,
brutish and short’. Same is true of a state living in the anarchic international
system. The assumptions about the international relations as, inhabited by rational
actors, being intrinsically anarchic; and states seeking to maximize their powers
and control over the necessary material resources took quite a time to become
the core elements of Realism. But identification of these core elements as
assumptions fundamental to Realism was as equal in importance to the subject
of IR as was their significance to the politics of Realism pursued by the big
powers of the day – largely in the period between the two world wars. Establishing
Realism as external conduct of powerful countries and also as a political
perspective or framework, especially after the Second World War, was at the
heart of identification and refinement of these assumptions.
Edward Hallett Carr was a noted historian, theorist, diplomat and journalist of
British origin. In his famous book The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939, Carr
had aimed at developing a foundation of international politics to be based on
“realist thinking”. With his emphasis on Realist thinking of IR, Carr had wanted
54
to correct the imagination of world politics that he thought was then based on Realism
“utopia” or “utopian wishing” and not on ‘realistic’ or empirical bases. Carr
conceived of Realism as (i) the impact of “thinking” upon “wishing” and ii) end
of the utopian period. He advocated Realism after criticizing the utopian or idealist
view of world politics. First World War wrought devastation for the imperial
powers of Europe especially the vanquished Central powers. How to prevent
recurrence of another similar destructive war? US President Woodrow Wilson
came with 14-Point programme wherein he proposed establishment of an
international organization to maintain peace which culminated in the creation of
the League of Nations in 1919. He also proposed codification of customary
international law. Wilson was of the view that establishment of an international
legal-institutional framework will deter states from going to war and encourage
them to abide the laws and decisions of the League of Nations. Wilson made
two more important proposals: the principle of collective security was enshrined
in the charter of the League; and secondly, Wilson also proposed the right to
self-determination of minorities in Europe and, in general, peoples of the colonies.
This liberal idealism was short lived: European states did not change their
behaviour and their rivalries and expansionism led to the outbreak of Second
World War in 1939, within 20 years of the First Word War. For Carr, talking of
subjects like disarmament, collective security and an international police force
was “utopia” or “utopian wishing” in the wretched context of international
relations that had developed over a century between 1815 Vienna Conference
and the 1914 outbreak of the First World War. Carr rejected liberal idealism, or
Wilsonian idealism as it was sometimes called, as not based on rigorous thinking.
He called it utopia because he thought that it was not even based on an analysis
of the reality. Events proved Carr’s criticism of idealism correct. League of
Nations failed. It failed to have a honourable peace treaty concluded among
European imperial and colonial powers. Treaty of Versailles and all other treaties
reflected the interests of the victors and the humiliation of the vanquished. League
of Nations also failed to stop arms race among European powers. Disarmament,
collective security and international police force were among the important
political ideas that had informed the arrangement of the League of Nations. With
US not being part of it and several other nations abandoning it, the League and
its ideals stood defeated and abandoned within few years. In this context therefore
when Carr was tossing the idea of Realism, he actually meant to develope the
foundation of International Relations as a discipline as well as a practice that
would “scientifically” reflect the reality of the world; or would approximate to a
“true” picture of the world.
Twentieth-century ‘Classical’ Realism is generally dated back to 1939 and the

publication of Edward Hallett Carr’s The 20 Year’s Crisis. Several more Classical
Realists contributed in the decades during 1940s and 50s. It was, however, Hans
Morgenthau’s Politics among Nations: the Struggle for Power and Peace, which
became the undisputed standard bearer for ‘Political Realism’ (as Morgenthau
describes Realism), with its first publication in 1948. According to ‘Classical’
Realism, the desire for power and accumulate more power is rooted in the human
nature. It is understandable that states are continuously engaged in a struggle to
increase their capabilities without restraint. ‘Classical’ Realism explains the
tendency to conflict and war in terms of human nature. Particular wars are
explained, for example, by aggressive statesmen or by domestic political systems
that give greedy parochial groups the opportunity to pursue self-serving
expansionist foreign policies.
55
Approaches 4.3.1 Tenets of Classical Realism
A) International politics is power politics: ‘Classical’ Realism (also called
‘Political Realism’) claims to offer an account of IR that is ‘realistic’. There
is no idealism and no wishful thinking. Global politics is, first and last,
about power and self-interest. This is why ‘Classical’ Realism is also called
‘power politics’ model of international politics. Morgenthau wrote: “Politics
is a struggle for power over men, and whatever its ultimate aim may be,
power is its immediate goal and the modes of acquiring, maintaining and
demonstrating it determines the technique of political action.”
B) State egoism and conflict: Man is selfish and competitive; in other words,
egoism is the defining characteristics of human nature. Exactly, same is
true of the state. Further, state system operates in a context of international
anarchy. The core theme of Realist theory can therefore be summed up in
the equation: egoism + anarchy = power politics. A particular feature of
‘Classical’ Realism: it strongly explains power politics in terms of egoism
(unlike Neorealism which explains it terms of anarchy).
How did this idea of human selfishness and international anarchy shape the
Realist understanding of IR? Three arguments are important: First, Realists
accept that no form of world government can ever be established; it means
that international politics is conducted within, what in effect, is an
international ‘state of nature.’ The international arena is therefore dangerous
and uncertain, with order and stability always being the exception rather
than the rule. Second, taking a cue from Machiavelli’s and Hobbes’s
description of the nature of individual, Realists view states as rational,
calculating, guided by self-interest, and working as coherent ‘units’; and
regard themselves as the most important actors on the world stage. Realists’
theories of international relation are thus firmly state-centric. Third, and
crucially, the fact that states are composed of, and led by, people who are
inherently selfish, greedy and power-seeking means that state behaviour
cannot but is inevitably bound to exhibit the same characteristics. Human
egoism therefore determines state egoism; or, as Morgenthau (1962) put it,
‘the social world is but a projection of human nature onto the collective
plane.’ Just as human egoism leads to unending conflict amongst individuals
and groups, state egoism means that international politics is marked by
inevitable competition and rivalry. As essentially self-interested actors, the
ultimate concern of each state is its own survival, which thereby becomes
the first priority of its leaders. As all states pursue security through the use
of military or strategic means, and wherever possible seek to gain advantage
at the expense of other states, international politics is characterized by an
irresistible tendency towards conflict.
C) A rational statecraft serves national interest: Realism as a School puts a

lot of emphasis on statecraft. ‘Classical’ Realists particularly do that. E.H.
Carr was scathing in his criticism of the Versailles treaty and the idealism
that led to the establishment of the League of Nations. Carr said that global
leaders allowed “wishing” to prevail over “thinking” when writing the peace
treaties. Revenge and not reason dominated the thought processes of the
victorious powers. Further, leaders ignored the importance of power in
56
international politics; and thus set the world on the inevitable course of Realism
another world war within 20 years. Morgenthau similarly emphasizes on
the ‘art of statecraft’. He argued that the practical conduct of politics should
be informed by the ‘Six Principles of Political Realism’, they are following:
(i) Politics is governed by objective laws which have their root in human
nature. (ii) The key to understanding international politics is the concept of
interest defined in terms of power. (iii) The forms and nature of state power
will vary in time, place and context but the concept of interest remains
consistent. (iv) Universal moral principles do not guide state behaviour,
although this does not rule out an awareness of the moral significance of
political action. (v) Moral aspirations are specific to a particular nation;
there is no universally agreed set of moral principles. (vi) The political
sphere is autonomous, meaning that the key question in international politics
is ‘How does this policy affect the power of the nation?’
D) Serving national interest is political morality: The key guide to statecraft

in the Realist tradition is the concern about the national interest. This concern
highlights the Realist stance on political morality. Critics consider Realism
as amoral; some say it is bereft of morality altogether. Realism insists that
ethical considerations should be strictly excluded from foreign policy
decision-making. State policy should be guided by a hard-headed pursuit of
the national interest; meaning thereby that ultimately, the state should be
guided by the wellbeing of its citizens. Protecting the life, liberty and well
being of its citizens, Realists claim is moral. What Realists reject, therefore,
is not nationally-based conceptions of political morality, but universal moral
principles that supposedly apply to all states in all circumstances. Indeed,
from a Realist perspective, one of the problems with the latter is that they
commonly get in the way of the pursuit of national interest. Examples are
defending human rights, promoting democracy etc.
E) Power politics does not mean endless conflict and war: Calculations about
the national interest, no denying, offer the surest basis for deciding when,
where and why wars should be fought. Although Realism is commonly
associated with the idea of endless war, ‘Classical’ Realists have often
opposed war and aggressive foreign policy. In their view, wars should only
ever be fought if vital national interests are at stake, the decision to wage
war being based on something like a cost–benefit analysis of its outcomes
in terms of national strategic interests. Such thinking, for example, led
Morgenthau and most US Realists to oppose the Vietnam War in the 1970s.
Realists have also been amongst the most vocal critics of the ‘war on terror’.
As many as 34 leading US Realist scholars had co-signed an open message
in the New York Times opposing war on Iraq in 2002.
In the end, the organizing principle of Realism is the anarchic international

system, wherein the actions of sovereign states are only limited by power.
Realism presents a simplified model of international behaviour that addresses
the persistence of war but fails to capture many other aspects of IR. Finally,
and to repeat once again, all Realists agree on the importance of three
fundamental ideas: statism, survival and self-help.
57
1) What are the tenets of ‘Classical’ Realism.
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
4.4 NEOREALISM
New ideas emerged in the 1970s; some of them were critical of ‘Classical’ Realist
assumptions. Together these ideas came to be described as ‘Neorealism’ or
‘Structural Realism’ as Kenneth Waltz calls it. Waltz wrote his Theory of
International Politics in 1979 and used the expression ‘Structural Realism.
Waltz said that theories of international politics could be developed at ‘three

levels of analysis – individual, the state and the international system.’ The major
defect of ‘Classical’ Realism is that it is not able to explain behaviour at a level
above the state. ‘Classical’ Realism explains international politics in terms of
the nature and action of state only. In other words, egoism and national interest
are at the core of ‘Classical’ Realism’. Waltz takes an important step forward:
he explains the behaviour of the state in terms of the structure of the international
system. In other words, while ‘Classical’ Realism explains international politics
in terms of ‘the inside’; Neorealism does it in terms of ‘the outside’. In shifting
attention from the state to the international system, Neorealism places an emphasis
on the implications of anarchy. The characteristics of international life stem from
the fact that states (and other international actors) operate within a domain which
has no formal central authority. But how does this shape the behaviour of states?
And why, according to Neorealists, does international anarchy tend towards
conflict rather than cooperation? Let us explain.
Waltz draws from Systems theories. He argues that Systems are composed of a
structure and their interacting units. Political structures have three elements: an
ordering principle (anarchic), the character of the units (functionally alike or
differentiated) and the distribution of capabilities. Waltz argues that two elements
of the structure of the international system are constant: the lack of an overarching
authority means that its ordering principle is anarchy, and the principle of self-
help means that all of the units remain functionally alike. Accordingly, the one
structural variable is the distribution of capabilities, with the main distinction
falling between bipolar and multipolar systems. In other words, in the anarchic
world system where all states are security conscious, power differential between
states becomes crucial. Some states have more capabilities than others; and that
shapes the world politics.
Anarchy is the organizing principle of the International System: The basic
difference between ‘Classical’ Realism and Neorealism is their contrasting views
58 on the source and content of states’ preferences. In contrast to ‘Classical’ Realism,
Neorealism excludes the internal makeup of different states. Morgenthau’s Realism
‘Classical’ Realism relied on the assumption that leaders of states are motivated
by their lust for power. Waltz’s theory, by contrast, omits leader’s motivations
and state characteristics as causal variables for international outcomes, except
for the minimal assumption that states seek to survive. In other words, Waltz
ignores two assumptions important in ‘Classical’ Realism namely egoism and
power aggrandizement by the state. Instead he considers the third assumption
namely, the anarchy in the international system. He wants to identify the persistent
effects of the international system. Two points bear significance: states (units)
in the anarchic international system are interconnected. Change in some units or
change in their mutual relations produces notable changes in other parts of the
international system. Secondly, international system is not the sum total of its
parts. Rather, international system exhibits properties and behaviours that are
different from those of the parts. Because systems are generative, the international
political system is characterized by complex nonlinear relationships and
unintended consequences. Outcomes are influenced by something more than
simply the aggregation of individual states’ behaviours, with a tendency toward
unintended and ironic outcomes. As a result, there is a gap between what states
want and what states get. Consequently, unlike ‘Classical’ Realists, Neorealists
see international politics as tragic, rather than as being driven by the aggressive
behaviour of revisionist states. To put it in simple words, for Neorealists,
international system, from outside and above, impacts and shapes the behaviour
of the states. In other words, the institutions and norms that inform the
international system endow it with autonomy and, as if, with a purpose of its
own.
What are the implications of international anarchy? Neorealists argue that

international anarchy necessarily tends towards tension, conflict and the
unavoidable possibility of war for three main reasons. (i) In the first place, as
states are separate, autonomous and formally equal political units, they must
ultimately rely on their own resources to realise their interests. International
anarchy therefore results in a system of ‘self-help’, because states cannot count
on anyone else to ‘take care of them.’ (ii) Second, relationships between and
amongst states are always characterized by uncertainty and suspicion. This is
best explained through the ‘security dilemma’. Although self-help forces states
to ensure security and survival by building up sufficient military capability to
deter other states from attacking them, such actions are always liable to be
interpreted as hostile or aggressive by other states. Uncertainty about motives
therefore forces states to treat all other states as enemies, meaning that permanent
insecurity is the inescapable consequence of living in conditions of anarchy. (iii)
Third, conflict is also encouraged by the fact that states are primarily concerned
about maintaining or improving their position relative to other states; that is,
with making relative gains. Apart from anything else, this discourages cooperation
and reduces the effectiveness of international organizations, because, although
all states may benefit from a particular action or policy, each state is actually
more worried about whether other states benefit more that it does. Although
such Neorealist thinking had a profound impact both within and beyond the Realist
tradition, since the 1990s Realist theories have often attempted to fuse other
theories and assumptions, giving rise to what has been called ‘Neoclassical
Realism’ or ‘Post-Neorealism’ – a new subcategory in Realism.
59
Approaches ‘Security Dilemma’: Neorealism or Structural Realism reaches many of the same
conclusions as ‘Classical’ Realism. However, it does so by looking at systemic
rather than individual and state-level causes. This means that it focuses less on
human nature and more on the anarchic structure of the international system in
which states operate. Kenneth Waltz emphasizes upon the distinction between
his approach and that of Morgenthau. Whereas ‘Classical’ Realism places
responsibility for war at the feet of selfish and narrow-minded individual human
beings, Waltz points to the anarchical structure of the international system as the
main reason for the persistence of war. He asserts that states are victims of the
‘security dilemma’, in which effort of a state to ensure its survival threatens the
security of other states around it. Following Realism’s concept of self-help, Waltz
argues that the only rational course of action for a state in an anarchic international
system is to maintain enough military and political power to defend itself against
aggression. In doing so, it might invest in new weapons or seek alliances with
other states that may or may not come to its aid in a crisis. Unfortunately, these
steps toward self-defence appear threatening to neighbouring states, forcing them
to respond with their own military build-up and alliance making. In a world
defined by mutual suspicion, one state’s attempts to safeguard its survival make
other states less secure, forcing them to respond with their own self-help strategies.
The result is an arms race in which every state builds up its military capability in
response to others’ actions. This is the crux of the ‘security dilemma’. Neorealists
use it to explain the persistence of conflict and war on the international stage. In
the absence of a world government, states are condemned to exist in an
environment of mutual distrust and one state’s declaration that it is seeking armed
strength for purely defensive reasons is certain to be met with suspicion by its
neighbours. Balance of Power, alliance system, arms race are few of the strategic
tools of the states in this game of survival.
Balance of Power, Polarity and Stability: The fact that states are inclined to
treat other states as enemies does not inevitably lead to bloodshed and open
violence. Rather, Neorealists, in common with ‘Classical’ Realists, believe that
conflict can be contained by the balance of power - a key concept for all types of
Realists. However, while ‘Classical’ Realists treat the balance of power (BOP)
as a product of prudent statecraft, Neorealists see it as a consequence of the
structural dynamics of the international system, and specifically, of the distribution
of power between and among states. To recall, distribution of power and power
capability is a variable and not a constant in Waltz’s thinking. The principal
factor affecting the likelihood of a balance of power, and therefore the prospect
of war or peace, is the number of great powers operating within the international
system. Although Neorealists believe that there is a general bias in the international
system in favour of balance rather than imbalance, world order is determined by
the changing fate of great powers. This is reflected in an emphasis on polarity.
Power polarity indicates the level of stability or lack of it, (and, polarity could be
uni- , bi-, multi- , and in its various permutations and combinations).
Waltz and Neorealists have generally associated bipolar systems with stability
and a reduced likelihood of war, while multipolar systems have been associated
with instability and a greater likelihood of war. This had inclined Waltz and
other Neorealists to view Cold War bipolarity in broadly positive terms, as a
‘long peace’; and to warn about the implications of rising multipolarity of the
post-Cold War era. Obviously, therefore, Neorealists are not happy about the
rising tide of multipolarism.
60
Neorealists disagree among themselves about the relationship between structural Realism
instability and the likelihood of war. The ‘Offensive Realists’ believe that
instability of a multipolar world could lead to conflict and war; whereas the
‘Defensive Realists’ maintain that since states tend to prioritize security over
power, they remain generally reluctant to go to war, regardless of the dynamics
of the international system.
For the Neorealists, bipolar systems tend towards stability and strengthen the
likelihood of peace. This happens for two main reasons: The existence of only
two great powers encourages each to maintain the bipolar system as, in the process,
they are maintaining themselves. Fewer great powers means the possibilities of
great power wars are reduced. The existence of only two great powers reduces
the chances of miscalculation and makes it easier to operate an effective system
of deterrence: Power relationships are more stable as each bloc is forced to rely
on inner (economic and military) resources; whereas, external (alliances with
other states or blocs) means of expanding power not being available. On the
other hand, multipolar systems tend to be inherently unstable. A larger number
of great powers increases the number of possible great power conflicts.
Multipolarity creates a bias in favour of fluidity and, perhaps, instability, as it
leads to shifting alliances as great powers have external means of extending
their influence. As power is more decentralized, existing great powers may be
more restless and ambitious while weak states may be able to form alliances in
order to challenge and displace existing great powers. The international political
outcomes that Waltz predicts include: multipolar systems will be less stable than
bipolar systems; interdependence will be lower in bipolarity than multipolarity;
and that regardless of unit (state) behaviour, hegemony by any single state is
unlikely or even impossible.
Waltz’s Theory of International Politics proved to be influential generating new

debates and giving new impetus to existing ones. For example, the debate over
whether states’ concerns over relative gains impeded cooperation?; and whether
bipolar or multipolar international systems were more war prone? In the 1980s,
Theory of International Politics came under scholarly criticism. As time went
by, subcategories in Nonrealism, in particular the ‘neoliberal institutionalism’
and writings on the ‘democratic peace’ became more popular. Realism’s decline
in the 1990s was amplified by international events. The closing years of the
twentieth century seemed to provide strong support for alternative approaches.
The disintegration of Soviet Union; formation of the European Union (EU) and
economic integration in South East Asian and other regions; the wave of
democratization and economic liberalization throughout the former Soviet Union,
Eastern Europe, Latin America and the other parts of the developing world; and
the improbability of war between the great powers all made Realism, both
‘Classical’ and ‘Neo’ and their various strands, seem outdated (Jervis 2002). It
appeared that Liberal or Constructivist theories could better appreciate and explain
the changes taking place in the international arena. But Realism staged a sort of
comeback after the terrorist events of September 11, 2001 in the United States.
Security of the state once again became the top concern in International Relations.
Not surprisingly, the post-9/11, Realism is regarded as being better suited to
address threats to national security. It is, however, ironic that its renaissance is at
least partly owed to transnational terrorist networks motivated by religious
extremism – non-state actors which Realism had never taken into account.
61
1) Describe the main arguments and assumptions of Neorealism.
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
4.5 CRITICISM OF REALISM

Realist approach puts an overemphasis on the power-centric configuration of
international relations. Realism stretches the power seeking tendency of the states
to the extent that it makes occurrence of conflict and war inevitable. As power–
seekers, states are aggressive in their external conduct. This approach denies
that states capable of cooperation and mutual help. Whereas, the new perspectives,
some of are which have been discussed in this course, see states both as aggressive
and cooperative. Further, these new approaches make a powerful critique of IR
and offer alternative views about IR as well as how to change the IR.
Similarly, Realism’s assumption of IR as anarchic negates the possibility that

there could be a transnational institutional arrangement for cooperation and even
enforcement of international decisions. It could call the other world-visions as
“utopias” but the very existence of the United Nations since 1945 and its deterrent
role in preventing another world war did not qualify the political condition of
anarchy exactly as Realism had imagined it. The United Nations is not
synonymous to a world government but definitely it represents the global
aspiration for peace and cooperation. It provides for collective security and
entrusts the Security Council to authorize ‘use of force’ under Chapter VII which
then is left for member-states to implement.
Realism is criticised for treating state as the sole actor in international politics.
Even in the context of a post-Cold War political environment where the actors
have become pluralised with blurred boundaries of participation, Realism’s state
as the sole wielder of power was heavily challenged. To defend itself from the
damages from these criticisms, Realism tried to reformulate its theoretical
proposition in the light of changing political circumstances. Some Realist
reformulations, for example, took place in the light of idealist/liberal explanations
of world politics as the latter’s explanations of IR were based on an integrated
approach of development and democratic peace. Such attempts to reformulate
Realism, however, have raised further criticisms. Jeffrey Legro and Andrew
Moravcsik, for example, observed that the Realist paradigm was degenerating
as its conceptual foundations were being stretched beyond recognition or utility.
As Realism had stretched its conceptual boundaries to other theoretical
approaches, Legro and Moravcsik thus ask, “Is everybody now a realist?”
In explaining the decline of Realism, Thomas Walker and Jeffrey Morton had
62 the following to say: “With the end of the Cold War, the expansion of democracy,
and the increasing importance of global trade and international organizations, Realism
the world is no longer neatly suited to realist concerns. …In effect, research in
international relations is no longer bound by one paradigmatic vision of global
politics. Evidence…shows a field with a plurality of theoretical concerns.”
4.6 LET US SUM UP

Among the conflict or cooperative speculations of IR, Realism adheres to conflict
and war. The conflicts speculation of Realism is captured through its “core
assumptions” in the section that follows. The section identified that i) states are
the actors in the international system, each seeking its own security and
aggrandizement of power, if need be, at the expense of others, ‘Classical’ Realists
emphasize on the goals of the state. ii) International system is anarchic.
Neorealists take anarchy as the organizing principle of the international system.
iii) Control over material resources are fundamental to the theoretical assumptions
of Realism. Emotions and idealism have no place in world politics. Morgenthau’s
“six principles” of Political Realism emphasize upon the centrality of power in
the International Relations. Waltz explains the causes of war or conflicts into
three images that are man, state and states system, and argues that anarchic set
up of world politics informs the behaviour of states because anarchy (i.e., absence
of world government) generates security threats as well as necessity for power
maximization. Criticism does not mean that Realism as an approach to IR has
ceased to exist. Despite far reaching changes in the world, state remains the
dominant and deciding actor in politics and continues to supply the much needed
fuel to re-energise various Realist theoretical assumptions time and again. Such
re-energising ventures, however, take place in the context where other theoretical
paradigms are kept in purview in order to avoid being considered as archaic in
the changing circumstances. The relevance of Realism continues to surface in
the contemporary discourse on the nature of IR. The events of 9/11 in the United
States and the preemptive/anticipatory measures that US took thereafter have
been seen as developments favouring the Realist enterprise of theory building.
The frequent reference to “homeland security” as reason for foreign policy actions,
including America’s ‘global war on terrorism’ (GWOT) and interventions in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. shows the ascendance of Realist thinking in
the policy-making circles in the US.
4.7 REFERENCES
Legro, Jeffrey W. and Andrew Moravcsik. (1999). Is Anybody Still a
Realist?,International Relations, 24 (2), Fall, 1999. pp. 5-55.
Morgenthau, Hans. (2007). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power
and Peace, Sixth Edition, Revised by K. W. Thompson, Kalyani, New Delhi.
Walker, Thomas C. and Jeffrey S. Morton. (2005). “Re-Assessing the “Power of
Power Politics” Thesis: Is Realism Still Dominant?,” International Studies Review,
7(2), June. pp. 341-356.
Waltz, Kenneth. (1979). Theory of International Politics, Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company.
Wendt, Alexander. (1992). Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social
Construction of Power Politics. International Organization, 46(2), Spring. pp.
391-425. 63
Approaches
4.8 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
EXERCISES
Check Your Progress Exercise 1
1) Your answer should highlight the following ponts
State seeks to secure and accumulate power
IR is anarchic in nature
Control over material resources is fundamental to world politics
Power politics
State egoism and conflict
National interest and power politics does not support endless conflict
and war
States are unitary, functionally similar actors
International system is characterised by anarchy
The distribution of power capabilities is the main, system-level variable
to explain state behaviour
64
Realism
UNIT 5 SYSTEMS APPROACH*
Structure
5.0 Objectives
5.1 Introduction
5.2 The Concept of System
5.3 Systems Approach to International Relations
5.3.1 Systems Approach of Morton Kaplan
5.3.2 Systems Approach of Kenneth Waltz
5.3.3 Systems Approach of Keohane and Nye
5.3.4 Systems Approach of Alexander Wendt
5.3.5 Systems Approach of Immanuel Wallerstein
5.4 Let Us Sum Up
5.5 References
5.6 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercise
5.0 OBJECTIVES
The aim of this Unit is to study the Systems approach to International Relations.
After going through this unit, you would be able to:
Explain the origins of the Systems approach
Narrate the application of Systems approach to International Relations and
Examine the salient features of various Systemic theories in International
Relations
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The Systems approach became the hallmark of Political Science and International
Relations (IR) during the Cold War period. The complexities in the Cold War
period, such as the emergence of the technologies of mass destruction (i.e., atom
bombs, and other lethal weapons), inventions in the fields of cybernetics, computer
science, etc., emphasized the requirement of an integrated and comprehensive
approach to address the complex problems unearthed during the Cold War period.
This led to the development of the General System Theory (GST) and the
application of Systems approach to the various branches of natural and social
sciences. The Systems approach, in general, believes that each and every System
in the universe is interconnected and exert influence over one another. Therefore,
we need to examine the dynamics of Systems to understand a particular
phenomenon in the universe.
5.2 THE CONCEPT OF SYSTEM

The systems approach is a framework to understand a phenomenon in terms of
the wholeness of a system, its self-organization, relationships, and interactions
among its various elements. This approach emerged as a critic of reductionist
Dr. Roshan Varghese V., Research Scholar, Political Science, IGNOU, New Delhi
*
65
Approaches tradition in science, which treats the natural as well as the social world as a
fragmented whole, thereby looking at the elements to understand a phenomenon.
In short, the Systems approach looks at the dynamics within a system and its
influence over other systems. In International Relations (IR), a systems approach
is used to understand a phenomenon by examining the function of the international
system, instead of analysing the developments happening in its elements (i.e.,
nation states).
A system can be defined as ‘an interconnected set of elements that is coherently

organized in a way that achieves something’. The four distinguishing features of
a system are: elements, interconnections, function or purpose, and a regulating
force. Take the example of our digestive system. It has elements such as teeth,
enzymes, stomach, and intestines. Elements in our digestive system are
interconnected through the physical flow of food. The function or purpose of our
digestive system is to digest food and extract basic nutrients from it and to transfer
those nutrients into another system of our body, i.e., the bloodstream. Our digestive
system is being regulated by the chemical signals. Thus, everything composed
of interconnected elements has a function or purpose, driven by a regulating
force, can be treated as a system. Human beings are the part of a number of
systems in society and each system is interconnected and exerts its influence
over the other systems in society.
The Systems approach is the intellectual child of the General Systems Theory
(GST), which was introduced by the Austrian-born Canadian biologist Ludwig
von Bertalanffy (1901-1972). Bertalanffy’s magnum opus, General Systems
Theory: Foundation, Development, Application (1968), is the canonical text of
the Systems theory. According to him, the System is ‘a complex of components
in mutual interaction’ and he set forth the GST as a discipline focusing on the
formulation of principles valid for Systems in general. During the time Bertalanffy
was working on GST, the world was undergoing unprecedented incidents such
as the Cold War rivalry between two antagonistic blocs, and the threat of the
weapons of mass destruction. Many people worried that the world was on the
verge of destruction. At the same time, advancements in the fields of science and
technology especially in cybernetics indicated the possibility of applying
knowledge for controlling human behaviour and society. In 1949, James Grier
Miller, Head of the Department of Psychology at the University of Chicago,
coined the term ‘behavioral science’ as a field of the integrated study of the
biological, psychological, and social dimensions of human behaviour. Then the
focus of some sections in academia shifted to conduct interdisciplinary research
on human behaviour and social conflicts. In order to achieve this goal, with the
support and funding of the Ford Foundation, the Center for Advanced Study in
the Behavioral Sciences (CASBS) was established, in Stanford, California in
1954. Several scholars who were interested in peace and building a comprehensive
theory about human behaviour and social conflicts were invited to associate with
the Center. Among scholars who played a major role in advancing General
Systems Theory along with Ludwig von Bertalanffy were, the economist and
peace activist Kenneth Boulding, psychologist James Grier Miller, the
physiologist Ralph Gerard, and the mathematician-biologist Anatol Rapoport.
In 1956, they established the Society for General Systems Research (SGSR) and
it began to organize annual conferences and to publish a General Systems
Yearbook since then. Building on the General Systems framework, James Grier
Miller launched the journal, Behavioral Science, in 1956, and Boulding initiated
66
the Journal of Conflict Resolution in 1957. Thus, GST and behavioural science Systems Approach
went hand in hand as an integrated and interdisciplinary approach to study and
control social relations.
The GST was developed as a discipline to formulate general principles of Systems

so that all branches of natural and social sciences can develop their own systems
theories. Kenneth Boulding made a bold statement when he said that GST is the
skeleton of science which is aimed at providing a structure of systems on which
each particular discipline can fit its own flesh and blood. Thus, GST seems to be
appealing to the leading scholars of that time and they adapted it to their concerned
disciplines. For instance, Talcott Parsons applied GST to sociology, Bela H.
Banathy to linguistics, and Howard T. Odum to ecology - the list continues. The
scholars of political science and IR also adapted General Systems Theory to
their disciplines and the following part of this Unit examines it in detail.
5.3 SYSTEMS APPROACH TO INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS
The Systems approach to IR marks a contrast to the traditional approach, which
focuses only on the domestic factors such as the ideology of a nation-state, the
character of the head of the state, and other internal matters that influence the
behaviour of nation-states. Thus, the core of the systems approach to the study
of IR, lies in the belief that the international system is an integrated whole, which
is made of its structure and nation-states.The study of IR should be focused on
the functions of the international system and its regulating force rather than
examining the domestic factors of nation-states.
5.3.1 Systems Approach of Morton Kaplan

The first major work that presented the systems approach to the discipline of
International Relations was Morton A. Kaplan’s System and Process in
International Politics (1957). Unlike Easton and Almond, whose works mainly
centred on political systems within nation-states and their interactions with other
political systems across the world, Kaplan’s study was focused on the international
system. During those days, the world was in the shadow of the Cold War, which
divided nation-states into two rival camps: between the US-led capitalist bloc
and the Soviet socialist bloc. As a result, Morton Kaplan envisaged the structure
of the international system in the form of a polarized world.
Kaplan holds that there is a certain degree of regularity in the behaviour of nation-
states’ within the international system. This regularity reveals a level of internal
coherence, which helps a scholar of International Relations to construct the models
of the international system. According to Kaplan, it is possible to predict the
evolution of various models of the international system with the help of examining
previous models of the international system.
Kaplan sets forth six distinct international systems out of which, the balance of
power system, and the loose bipolar system had existed in history, and the rest of
the systems are hypothetical, which could emerge from the end of the bipolar
system. The six systems are explained below.
67
Approaches A) The Balance of Power System: A period between the eighteenth century
and 1914 (the beginning year of the First World War) had been considered
as the golden era of the balance of power system. This system featured a
multipolar dynamic of five dominant European powers of similar strength.
These powers sought to enhance their capacities through diplomatic channels
rather than military means. There were occasions of war among these powers,
but it came to an end when there was a threat of the destruction of one of
these powers. Hence, it was clear that they never intended to alter the system;
instead, the primary goal was to preserve the system. When one power
attempted to dominate the others, then other powers formed an alliance
against it. When one major actor had suffered a defeat, the other powers did
not exclude that state. Instead, the defeated state was reintegrated into the
system by other states.
B) The Loose Bipolar System: Unlike the balance of power system, the loose
bipolar system featured diverse actors during the period of Cold War. The
basic structure of the system was two large rival blocs led by two
superpowers: the United States of America and the Soviet Union. These
two blocs were radically different in terms of ideologies: democratic
capitalism and communism. In addition to the two blocs, there were also
other actors such as Non-Aligned states and international organizations such
as the United Nations. Both the superpowers avoided a direct war due to
the threat of nuclear destruction via counter-attack (according to the second
strike doctrine).
C) The Tight Bipolar System: The tight bipolar system has so many
characteristics in common with the loose bipolar system. For instance, the
structure of the tight bipolar system is the two rival blocs and the actors of
both blocs are hierarchically organized. The tight bipolar system will be
transformed into a loose bipolar system if both actors are non-hierarchically
organized. Another important feature is the role of the other actors than the
bloc actors. International organizations such as the United Nations will be
marginalized and Non-Aligned states will either lose their significance or
will disappear in the tight bipolar system.
D) The Universal System: The universal system is possible when the bipolar
system disappears and international organizations such as the United Nations
become so powerful in maintaining world peace. This system resembles
Immanuel Kant’s idea of the confederation of republican states which follow
rule of law. What makes the universal system unique is its nature and
functions. The universal system will be an integrated and solidarity system.
It will have the mechanisms to perform judicial, economic, political and
administrative functions. These functions may be performed by either the
United Nations or any such international organization. This system is
featured by a high level of cross-border cooperation and humanitarian
interventions.
E) The Hierarchical System: This system comes into existence with the demise
of the bipolar system through the breakup of one of the two blocs. Then the
international order is reorganized into a political hierarchy and the ideology
of the remaining bloc is enforced upon the members of the collapsed bloc.
Depending on the ideology of the remaining bloc and the role of the
international organizations in the changed scenario, the hierarchic system
68 will be either democratic or authoritarian.
F) The Unit Veto System: The unit veto system is one in which all states Systems Approach
possess the capability to destroy one another, but all of them are aware of
the consequences of the attack: that aggression will trigger a retaliatory
attack. The consciousness about the retaliatory action discourages each and
every nation-state from attacking other countries. Kaplan held that the
advancements in the fields of communication and technology minimize the
danger of an accidental war under the unit veto system.
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer,
1) Name the six international systems set forth by Morton Kaplan.
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
5.3.2 Systems Approach of Kenneth Waltz

Kenneth Waltz, the founding father of Neorealism or ‘Structural Realism’, has
immensely contributed to the advancement of the Systems approach to IR. In his
1954 book, Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis, Waltz introduced
three levels of analysis in international relations. They are, respectively, the selfish
nature of man; the behaviour of states and institutions; and the pressure of the
international system. Waltz further stated that the issues of high politics, such as
war are determined by the international system. According to Waltz, the war is
instigated by the international system, and it could not be eliminated by changing
the behaviour of states’ leaders and nation-states. Therefore, in this book Waltz
made an argument that an analysis of the international system was needed to
understand international politics.It was in his 1979 book, Theory of International
Politics, that Waltz set forth the major canons of Neorealism and the salient
features of his Systems approach as explained below.
A) The Composition of the International System: According to Waltz, the

international system is composed of its structure and its interacting units,
i.e., nation-states. He holds that structure of the international system is made
of three elements: (i) ordering principle, (ii) the function of the units, and
(iii) the distribution of material capabilities. The first element of the structure
is its ordering principle, and according to Waltz, it is anarchic. This is due
to the absence of a world government for maintaining international peace.
In the absence of a world government, there is no mechanism to ensure the
survival of nation-states other than a self-help system. The third attribute of
the structure is the distribution of material capabilities among units in the
international system. Material capabilities are primarily military weapons
and manpower. In addition to that economic resources that support the
enhancement of military infrastructure are also treated as a material
capability.
69
Approaches B) Distribution of Material Capabilities as the Regulating Force: Like the
‘invisible hand’ in the market, the structure of the international system
regulates the behaviour of nation-states through the distribution of material
capabilities. How does it work? We have already seen that the ordering
principle of the structure is anarchy, and self-help is the only means to ensure
the security of the nation-states. These two factors lock nation-states in a
security dilemma and instigate them to augment capabilities for balancing
the power of their rivals. The third attribute of the structure is the distribution
of material capabilities. Here material capabilities function as a regulating
force or catalyst for developments in international politics.For instance,
suppose when one of the nation-states augments its capabilities, then its
potential rivals are compelled to scale-up their military strength, make
alliances or bandwagon with a more powerful state so that they can ensure
their own security. Sometimes the disproportionate distribution of
capabilities may make some states more powerful than their rivals and it
may instigate war. However, due to nation-states being rational actors their
behaviour is based on the logic of the consequences. In sum, material
capabilities act as catalysts for war, diplomatic initiatives, military alliances,
and bandwagoning.
C) Autonomy of the International System: One of the major contributions

of Waltz’s Neorealism is the severing of the link between the ‘low politics’
(i.e., politics within nation-states and the ‘high politics’ (politics of the
international system). All issues of national or local importance come under
the purview of ‘low politics’. For instance, unemployment, inflation,
environmental issues, human rights, etc., are part of low politics. ‘High
politics’ refers to the issues related to international politics such as war,
defence, national security, and foreign policy. According to Waltz, low
politics cannot affect international politics. Moreover, nation-states are like-
units, therefore, the nature of political systems (i.e., authoritarian, democratic
or ideological orientations), size of nation-states and their capabilities cannot
make any difference in their function in the international system. The function
of all nation-states is to ensure their national security in a condition of
international anarchy. Therefore, irrespective of the internal dimensions of
politics all nation-states behave in the same manner with regard to their
foreign relations. By making a clear distinction between national politics
and international politics, Waltz argues that the structure of the international
system regulates the behaviour of nation-states through the distribution of
material capabilities. In sum, Waltz suggests that the structure of the
international system regulates the behaviour of nation-states and it is not
possible that nation-states regulate the function of the international system.
Hence, Waltz argues that in order to understand the developments in
international politics one has to examine the external dimensions of politics
(the dynamics in the international system). As far as Waltz is concerned,
focusing on domestic factors for understanding international politics is a
reductionist approach. Instead, Waltz sets forth Neorealism as a framework
to understand international politics by examining the dynamics in the
international system, and thereby, seeks to establish the autonomy of the
international system.
70
Check Your Progress Exercise 2 Systems Approach

ii) See the end of the unit for tips for your answer.
1) What are the salient features of the systems approach of Kenneth Waltz?
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
5.3.3 Systems Approach of Keohane and Nye

Works of Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye set forth Neoliberal understanding
of the international system. Their joint book, Power and Interdependence: World
Politics in Transition (1977, 2001), is one of the earliest works to systematically
examine the processes that later came to be known as globalization. The opening
statement of the book is that “We live in an era of interdependence”, owing to
the increasing pace of cross-border transportation, communication, and trade. In
this book, Keohane and Nye define interdependence as ‘situations characterized
by reciprocal effects among countries or among actors in different countries.This
book further elaborates the neoliberal idea of ‘complex’ interdependence and its
implications for international politics, especially its functions in an anarchical
international system. Another classic text of Neoliberalism in IR is Keohane’s,
After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy
(1984). As its title indicates this book proposes that cooperation among nation-
states is possible even without a dominant power in the lead role.
Keohane and Nye developed Neoliberalism as a systemic theory, which explains

how international institutions facilitate mutual interdependence among nation-
states and regulate the behaviour of nation-states. In order to understand the
Systems approach of Neoliberalism, we have to understand the concepts such as
international institutions, organizations, and regimes according to Neoliberalism.
International institutions are defined as ‘sets of rules, principles, and expectations
that govern interstate relations’. For instance, ‘liberal trading order’ is an
international institution because it has certain rules and principles to serve that
purpose and expectations that states open their markets for ensuring the smooth
functioning of international trade. Here, the function of the international institution
is to help states negotiate and enter into mutually beneficial agreements.
International organizations are the formal embodiment of international
institutions. In other words, the international institution is a broader realm, and it
subsumes an international organization under its concern. For instance, the World
Trade Organization is an international organization, which is constituted to serve
the purpose of an international institution, i.e., the ‘liberal trading order’. An
International organization is featured with a headquarters and other offices,
governing council and employees, budgets, and agency to take actions against
its member states. The United Nations (UN), the International Monetary Fund
(IMF), the World Health Organization (WHO) are the best examples of
international organizations. Another key term, often discussed by Neoliberals is
71
Approaches international regime. The term international regime has been used to refer to
rules and norms within a particular issue-area. For instance, the Climate Change
Regime governs rules and norms to mitigate global climate change. In the same
manner, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Regime is aimed to prevent the spread of
nuclear weapons and weapons technology, and TRIPS Regime deals with the
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. The presence of
international institutions has significantly increased since the end of the Cold
War. The number of formal international organizations had risen from three
hundred in the 1970s to six thousand at the dawn of the 21st century. The function
of international institutions, international organizations, and international regimes
is to strengthen interdependence. The salient features of Keohane and Nye’s
Systems Approach are as discussed below.
A) The Composition of the International System: As far as Waltz is
concerned, the international system is composed of its structure and nation-
states as its interacting units. However, according to Keohane and Nye,
states are not the only central actors in the international system; rather they
expand the scope of the international system by incorporating international
institutions and non-state actors into its components. Today it is very clear
that international institutions, non-state actors such as transnational
corporations and global civil society groups are exerting influence on nation-
states. Hence, Neoliberals analyse the role being played by international
institutions, organizations, regimes, transnational corporations, and civil
society groups in international relations.
B) Nature of the International System: Keohane and Nye share with
Neorealists the belief that the nature of the international system is anarchical.
However, they make an addition that interdependence also is a structural
feature of the international system. In other words, both Keohane and Nye
argue that the international system is anarchical and interdependent at the
same time. The international system is anarchical in the sense that there is
no world government above sovereign nation-states and the increasing pace
of cross-border transportation, communication, trade and the growing
number of international organizations all show that “we live in an era of
interdependence”. While agreeing with Neorealists that anarchy is a problem
as it triggers conflict among nation-states, Keohane and Nye find hope in
interdependence that it makes possible the cooperation among nation-states,
which eventually alter the nature of the international system.
C) Regulating Force in the International System: Keohane and Nye suggest
that institutions are functioning as the regulating force in the international
system. Institutions create norms that are binding on nation-states and that
influence the behaviour of nation-states and change the patterns of
international politics. For instance, many nation-states including India had
to amend their patent laws to conform to the WTO’s guidelines on intellectual
property. The role of institutions is increasing in this era of complex
interdependence with the presence of a number of actors, other than nation-
states, including international organizations, transnational corporations, and
global civil society groups. The quintessential example of the growing role
of non-state actors in international relations is Greenpeace, which is an
international organization engaged in protecting the global environment
and promoting peace. They have succeeded in pressurizing governments
across the world by gaining public opinion on issues related to the
72 environment, nuclear testing, etc.
Check Your Progress Exercise 3 Systems Approach

1) Write a brief note on the Systems approach of Keohane and Nye?
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
5.3.4 Systems Approach of Alexander Wendt

Structural Constructivism, set forth by Alexander Wendt, is noted for its Systems
approach. Constructivism as an IR theory that argues that international relations
are a social construction. It emphasizes the role of ideational factors such as
culture, social values, identity, assumptions, rules, and language in the construction
of international relations rather than the material factors such as military
capabilities and economic resources. Even though Constructivism emerged in
the wave of post positivism/postmodernism/poststructuralism in IR in the late
1980s, Alexander Wendt took a slight deviation and made his version of
Constructivism (i.e., Structural Constructivism) compatible with some basic
assumptions of Neorealism and Neoliberalism. Major works of Wendt are his
article, Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power
Politics (1992), and his book, Social Theory of International Politics (1999).
Salient Features of Wendt’s Systems Approach are explained below.
A) The Composition of the International System: Like Neorealism and

Neoliberalism, Structural Constructivism of Alexander Wendt holds that
the international system is composed of its structure and nation-states.
However, Wendt differs with Neorealism and Neoliberalism on the elements
of the structure. He argues that the structure is made of social relationships.
Social relationships are comprised of shared knowledge, social practices,
and material resources. The shared or intersubjective knowledge and social
practices define who are the enemies, rivals, and friends for one nation-
state to another in the international system. For instance, the shared
knowledge about each other and their practices accordingly inform the
United States and North Korea that both of them are ‘enemies’ to each
other. Most of the member states in the European Union consider one another
as ‘friends’. Material resources acquire meaning according to shared
knowledge and practices. For instance, the nuclear development programme
of North Korea will definitely irk the United States. The scaling up of military
infrastructure of a member state in the European Union does not cause any
tension among its counterparts, because it does not pose any threat to them.
B) Ideational Factors as the Regulating and Constitutive Force: As far as

Wendt is concerned, the ideational factors such as identity, norms, culture,
etc., are functioning as the regulative as well as the constitutive forces that
influence the behaviour of nation-states in the international system. For
73
Approaches instance, the identity of a nation-state as ‘democratic’ country informs it
that it should stand for the cause of human rights and democratic values
across the world. The ideational factors constitute the interests of nation-
states. In other words, ideational factors constitute the interests of nation-
states, and it also informs nation-states about the appropriate behaviour in
the international system.
C) The Consequence of Anarchy: Wendt agrees with Neorealism and

Neoliberalism that the nature of the international system is anarchic.
However, he has a unique explanation about its consequence. Neorealism
of Waltz holds a pessimistic view towards anarchy and suggests that the
self-help is the only mechanism to ensure security. This gives a one-sided
picture on the consequence of anarchy, a condition of ‘war of all against
all’. However, Keohane and Nye are optimistic that the ill-effects of the
anarchy can be mitigated through institutions. On the contrary, Wendt is
neither pessimistic nor optimistic about the consequence of the anarchy.
Rather, he is agnostic in this regard and states that ‘anarchy is what states
make of it’, which indicates that the meaning and consequence of anarchy
are dependent upon the nature of relationships among nation-states. Wendt
further suggests that anarchy can take three principal forms: Hobbesian,
Lockean, and Kantian. Enemies create Hobbesian anarchy which is similar
to the anarchy depicted by Neorealism. Nation-states, who are in Hobbesian
anarchy feel insecure and sometimes pose a threat to world peace. Lockean
anarchy is less competitive and is in some respects closer to the anarchy
sets forth by Neorealism. The relationships among friends create Kantian
anarchy, which is cordial and does not pose any threat to peace.
5.3.5 Systems Approach of Immanuel Wallerstein

Immanuel Wallerstein’s Systems approach, known as the World-Systems
approach, is the comprehensive version of the dependency theory. Wallerstein
sets forth his Systems approach through the following books: The Modern World-
System, Volume 1: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-
Economy in the Sixteenth Century (1974), The Capitalist World Economy (1979),
The Modern World-System, Volume 2: Mercantilism and the Consolidation of
the European World-Economy, 1600-1750 (1980), The Modern World-System,
Volume 3: The Second Era of Great Expansion of the Capitalist World-Economy,
1730-1840s (1989), The Modern World-System, Volume 4: Centrist Liberalism
Triumphant, 1789–1914 (2011).
According to Immanuel Wallerstein, the present or the modern world-system is

a capitalist one, which emerged in Europe during the period between 1450 and
1650 (this period is also known as the long sixteenth century). Through the process
of colonization, this system was extended to North and South America, Asia,
and Africa and thereby every region of the world was integrated into a capitalist
system. Therefore, the basic argument of Wallerstein is that the world is not a set
of independent and separate nation-states. Instead, nation-states are the part of a
larger system (i.e., the World-System), which is the set of relatively stable and
political relationships, being regulated by the global capital. Therefore he suggests
that focussing solely on developments within each nation-state will not bring a
clear picture of the developments in the world-system, rather we have to examine
the world system as a whole, its regulating force and the interactions of its
74
components. Salient Features of Wallerstein’s Systems Approach are explained Systems Approach
below.
A) The Composition of the Modern World-System: According to Wallerstein

the key components of the modern World-System are economic zones,
nation-states, social classes, and status groups. Economic zones are the
classification of the geographical regions on the basis of the division of
labour (i.e., economic zones primarily engaged in the production of primary
commodities and zones focused on the manufacturing of the most advanced
commodities). Wallerstein holds that there are three economic zones on the
basis of the division of labour, and they are respectively: ‘core’, ‘peripheral’,
and ‘semi-peripheral’. The ‘core’ is the technologically advanced zone in
the world, or known as the ‘global north’. The ‘core’ specializes in the
production of the most advanced commodities and featured by capital-
intensive production, the possession of cutting-edge technologies, and the
highly developed industries. Due to these factors, the ‘core’ gets high profits
from economic activities. The ‘core’ is represented by Western Europe, the
United States, and Japan. In sharp contrast, the ‘peripheral’ is the least
developed regions in the world, and they are also known as the ‘Global
South’. The ‘peripheral’ is engaged in the production of primary
commodities. The ‘peripheral’ economic zone is relatively less
technologically sophisticated and more labour intensive than that of the
‘core’. Due to these reasons, the ‘peripheral’ gets low profits from its
produces. The ‘peripheral’ is represented by most regions in Latin America,
Asia, and Africa. The ‘semi-peripheral’ is an area with a mixture of about
half “core-like” and half “peripheral-like” activities. The example of ‘semi-
peripheral’ economies is India, China, and South Africa.
The second component of the modern world-system is the nation-state. The

modern World-System is politically organized into a sovereign and
territorially bound nation-states.
The third component of the modern world-system is social classes. In a

capitalist world-system, social classes are formed on the basis of people’s
relationship to the means of production. Those who own the means of
production are the capitalists and those who are deprived of it are the workers.
The fourth component of the modern world-system is the status groups, the
social groupings based on solidarity derives from cultural identification.
Social divisions based on religion, language, race or ethnicity belongs to
this category.
B) Nature of the Modern World-System: According to Wallerstein, the

modern world-system is capitalist and under this system economic power
rests in the hands of those who own the means of production. Since the
owners of the means of production (individuals, private corporations, and
state organizations) are obsessed with the appropriation of maximum profits,
the capitalist modern world-system is inherently exploitative. The capitalists
exploit the workers and the core exploits the peripheral states, thereby leading
to extreme economic inequalities in the world economy.
C) Regulating Force in the Modern World-System: The regulating force in

the modern world-system is the global capital, which organizes the economic
activities across the world. Most of the Marxist thinkers, including world-
75
Approaches systems theorists, consider the globalization as an economic transition in
which the requirements of global capital are fulfilling through the
implementation of neoliberal economic programmes across the world. In
this condition, nation-states in the peripheral are restrained by the core,
international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
and transnational corporations, in accordance with the interests of global
capital. For instance, the structural adjustment programmes proposed by
the IMF compel several nation-states in the global south to roll-back their
welfare programmes. By influencing the prerogative of a nation-state to
take the decisions regarding matters under its jurisdiction, the global capital
has shown that it is able to challenge the concept of state sovereignty.

1) Write a short note on the modern world-system.
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
5.4 LET US SUM UP

In sum, the behavioural revolution in the 1950s and 1960s initiated the Systems
approach to Political Science and IR. Major System theorists to IR are Morton
Kaplan, Kenneth Waltz, Robert Keohane, Joseph Nye, Alexander Wendt, and
Immanuel Wallerstein. Most of the Systems theorists to IR view the international
system, as an integrated whole, made of its structure and nation-states as its
primary units. They also argue that the System has a mechanism to control the
behaviour of nation-states, therefore, the developments in International Relations
is a consequence of the function of the international system rather than that of
the result of the domestic factors. The significance of the Systems approach to
IR is that it sets forth a distinct framework to analyse International Relations.
5.5 REFERENCES
Chiaruzzi, Michele. (2012). ‘Realism’, in An Introduction to International
Relations, Second Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Choi, Hyunsun. (2011). ‘Systemism’, in 21st Century Political Science: A
Reference Handbook, Volume 1, Los Angeles: Sage.
Fisher, John R. (2011). ‘Systems Theory and Structural Functionalism’, in 21st
Century Political Science: A Reference Handbook, Volume 1, Los Angeles: Sage.
Glaser, Charles L. (2018). ‘A Realist Perspective on the Constructivist Project’,
in Constructivism Reconsidered: Past, Present, and Future, Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press.
76
Harrison, Lisa; Adrian Little; and Edward Lock. (2015). Politics: The Key Systems Approach
Concepts, Oxon: Routledge.
Ishiyama, John T. (2012). Comparative Politics: Principles of Democracy and
Democratization, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Jackson, Robert; and Georg Sorensen. (2016). Introduction to International
Relations: Theories and Approaches, Sixth Edition, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Milner, Helen V. (2009). ‘Power, Interdependence, and Nonstate Actors in World
Politics: Research Frontiers’, in Power, Interdependence, and Nonstate Actors
in World Politics, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Shannon, Thomas R. (2018). An Introduction to the World-System Perspective,
Second Edition, New York: Routledge.
Telo, Mario. (2016). International Relations: A European Perspective, Oxon:
Routledge.
Walker, Thomas C. (2013). ‘A Circumspect Revival of Liberalism: Robert O.
Keohane and Joseph S. Nye’s Power and Interdependence’, in Classics of
International Relations: Essays in Criticism and Appreciation, New York:
Routledge.

EXERCISES
1) Your answer should highlight the following systems
Balance of Power
Loose bipolar
Tight bipolar
Universal
Hierarchical
Unit veto system.
1) Your answer should highlight the following points
The composition of the International system
Distribution of material capabilities as the regulating force
Autonomy of the International System
International institutions facilitate mutual interdependence among
nation-states and regulate the behaviour of nation-states
International institutions help states negotiate and enter into mutually
beneficial agreements
77
Basic argument of Wallerstein that the world is not a set of independent
and separate nation-states
Nation-states are the part of a larger system (i.e., the World-System),
which is the set of relatively stable and political relationships, being
regulated by the global capital
We have to examine the world system as a whole, its regulating force
and the interactions of its components
78
Systems Approach
UNIT 6 DEPENDENCY THEORY*
Structure
6.0 Objectives
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Different Versions of Dependency Theory
6.2.1 Moderate Version
6.2.2 Radical
6.2.3 World-Systems Theory
6.3 Major Concepts in Dependency Theory
6.3.1 Dependency as the Result of a Historical Process
6.3.2 Core, Periphery, Semi-Periphery and Enclave Economy
6.3.3 Dependency Theory as a Critic of Liberal Theories
6.3.4 Critique of Modernization Theory
6.3.5 Development of Underdevelopment
6.3.6 Neoliberal Globalization Entrenching the Dependency
6.4 Criticism
6.5 Let Us Sum Up
6.6 References
6.0 OBJECTIVES
In this Unit, you are going to go through the dependency (dependencia) theory;
the developments that led to its origins; and significance and its major versions.
The Unit also examines criticisms of dependency theory. After studying this
Unit, you will be able to:
Explain the origins and major versions of dependency theory
Examine the major concepts in dependency theory and
Narrate criticisms of dependency theory
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Dependency theory emerged in Latin America during the second half of the 1950s
as a critic of liberal theories of socio-economic and political development.
Dependency theory can be defined as an explanation of the economic
backwardness of a nation-state due to the external influence. Theotonio Dos
Santos (1936–2018), one of the major proponents of dependency theory defines
it as a historical condition which shapes the structure of the world economy in
favour of some countries thereby adversely affecting the development of others.
Dependency is a situation in which the economy of a country is conditioned by
the development and expansion of the economy of another country. Dependency
theory seeks to understand and explain the reasons for the persistent economic
backwardness and underdevelopment of the countries in the global south and
sets forth suggestions to resolve this problem.
* 79
Approaches
6.2 DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF DEPENDENCY
THEORY
Dependency is not a single unified theory rather it is a set of theories or
frameworks to study continued economic dependence and underdevelopment in
some countries/ regions and its social, cultural, economic and foreign policy
fall-outs. Dependency scholars are divided into a number of camps including
that of a moderate version represented by Raul Prebisch, radical or Marxist-
Leninist version propagated by Andre Gunder Frank, and a more comprehensive
World Systems theory set forth by Immanuel Wallerstein.
6.2.1 Moderate Version of Dependency Theory

Works of Raul Prebisch (1901-1986) played a major role in generating the
dependency theory. Raul Prebisch was an Argentine economist and during his
illustratious career he served as a professor of economics, Director-General of
the Argentine Central Bank, head of the United Nations Economic Commission
for Latin America (ECLA), and the United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development (UNCTAD). During his tenure as the Executive Secretary of ECLA,
Presbisch brought out a ground-breaking study titled, The Economic Development
of Latin America and Its Principal Problems (1950), which was an inquiry into
the economic backwardness of Latin American countries.
According to Prebisch, it is the ‘adverse’ terms of trade (ToT) with the developed
countries which has historically deteriorated the economic condition of Latin
American countries. ToT is the ratio between a country’s export prices and its
import prices. While Latin American countries are the producers of primary
commodities, they export it to the industrially advanced countries. These primary
commodities are processed and transformed into the finished products in the
industrially advanced countries. These finished products are exported to the
developing countries including that of the Latin American region. In other words,
countries export their primary commodities at cheaper prices and import finished
products at higher prices and this adversely affects their economy. On the basis
of his empirical study conducted with Hans Wolfgang Singer (1910-2006),
Prebisch set forth the Prebisch-Singer terms-of-trade thesis (PST). PST suggests
that the economies of the producers of primary commodities are declining day-
by-day due to the increasing trade deficit with producers of finished products. In
other words, the economic gap between the producers of primary commodities
and the producers of finished products enhances in tandem with their increasing
economic ties. Thus, the Prebisch-Singer terms-of-trade thesis (PST) laid
foundations for the dependency theory.
Prebisch challenged the theory of comparative advantage and the liberal

economists’ view that the developing countries should specialize in the production
of primary commodities in order to benefit from free trade. Prebisch introduced
a structuralist approach to the study of the global economy, which was based on
the binary oppositions of development/underdevelopment and core/periphery.
In other words, his study was focused on the inherently asymmetric relationship
between the developed and developing countries. Unlike liberal theories,
Prebisch’s approach was examining the theme of development and
underdevelopment from the experience of the countries in the global south. Having
set forth the reasons for economic backwardness in Latin America, Prebisch
80
then set forth a number of recommendations such as state intervention, economic Dependency Theory
integration of Latin America, land reforms in dismantling inequalities and import
substitution industrialization (ISI). Import substitution industrialization is a trade
policy, which seeks to reduce imports by promoting industries at the domestic
level. The major aims of ISI are a reduction in imports thereby resolving the
problem of trade deficit, promotion of local industries thereby achieving industrial
self-sufficiency and also scale up economic growth. However, there were certain
hurdles to a successful implementation of these recommendations. The first was
the comparatively smaller markets in Latin American countries which were not
enough to support the economies of scale, and keep the prices low. The second
issue was related to the difficulties in transforming Latin America from agrarian
economies to the industrial nations. The third problem was that ISI caused more
dependency on import of capital and heavy machinery needed for industrialization.
6.2.2 Radical Dependency Theory

Radical dependency theory is built upon Marxism and Lenin’s understanding of
imperialism. Andre Gunder Frank, James Cockcroft, and Dale Johnson are
considered to be the radical dependency theorists. The radical dependency
theorists argue that the motive force behind the dependency relationship is global
capitalism. The developed countries find markets for their finished products in
developing countries. In addition to that, the developed countries also treat
developing countries as the destination for investment. When developing countries
borrow capital from developed countries, the loan repayments deteriorate their
economy. Radical dependency theorists hold that the ‘underdevelopment’ of the
countries in the global south is a historical product. Here ‘underdevelopment’ as
a condition differs from undeveloped. Undeveloped is a condition of lack of
development, and underdevelopment is the result of exploitation by another
country. Centuries of colonialism, exploitation, and socio-economic and political
restructuring of colonies by the imperial powers have transformed the erstwhile
colonies into peripheries and their former masters (present-day developed
countries) into the centre or core. As a result, the countries in the periphery have
to depend upon the core (developed countries) for capital, technology, and finished
goods. In other words, centuries of colonialism has transformed developing
countries into the suppliers of primary commodities, cheap labour, and the
repositories of capital, technologies, and finished goods.
Radical dependency theorists hold that the rigid international division of labour
enforced by the capitalist system is responsible for underdevelopment in some
parts of the world. Here, periphery states are tasked with the supply of primary
commodities. The most striking point is that what periphery states have to supply
and what they have to receive in the form of capital and technology are determined
by the economic interests of the core. Here, the periphery states do not have any
say or control over the matters related to their development. In such a condition,
the governments in the core and the periphery states try to satisfy the interests of
the bourgeoisie. This control of bourgeoisie over the core and periphery is the
characteristic of the highest stage of capitalism or imperialism. In the process,
the periphery countries also experience loss of sovereignty as decision-making
power shifts to the core. Raw material producers become an appendage to the
economies of the core. What one finds is not a genuine national capitalism in
Latin America. Rather it is a capitalism that is dependent; this dependent capitalism
is the result of the processes and decisions made in the core economies.
81
Approaches Radical dependency theorists argue that the countries in the global south cannot
follow the western path to development. The long history of colonialism and the
restructuring of socio-political and economic systems in the colonies created an
asymmetrical structure of relations between the core and the periphery states.
This has made the core as the producers of the finished products and the periphery
states as the suppliers of primary commodities. Moreover, the terms of trade
favour the core at the expense of the periphery, which further widens the
inequalities between the core and the periphery states. Radical dependency
theorists hold that the sheer exploitation in the form of exchange between the
primary commodities and the finished products will only deteriorate the vulnerable
condition of the developing countries. In other words, this unequal exchange
advances the ‘development of underdevelopment’. According to the radical
dependency theorists such as Frank, underdevelopment is the condition created
by the exploitation of developing countries by the undeveloped countries. Hence,
a socialist revolution is the only way to break away from this exploitative and
dependent relationship.
6.2.3 World Systems Theory

World systems theory, proposed by Immanuel Wallerstein, is the comprehensive
version of the dependency theory. In contrast to the moderate and radical
dependency theorists, who limit their study to the economic relations between
the core and periphery, World Systems theory is focused on a broader geographical
framework. It draws on the Lenin’s understanding of imperialism and World
Systems theory holds that the world as it is today can be understood only in the
context of the development of global capitalism. Because, today there is only
one world system, which is a capitalist world-economy, emerged in Europe during
the ‘long’ sixteenth century (1450-1640). According to Wallerstein, this capitalist
world-economy is characterized by the ‘production for the market to gain the
maximum profit, and unequal exchange relations between the core and the
peripheral states’. Further, this global capital has generated a hierarchical structure,
which determines the position of each state within this world-economy. Through
this hierarchical structure and market mechanisms, the core exploits the periphery.
Wallerstein introduces the ‘semi-periphery’ as a third category between the

‘periphery’ and the ‘core’. The semi-peripheral states are the emerging economies
such as India, China, South Africa, and Brazil, characterized by attributes such
as modern industries, cities, and large peasantry. According to World Systems
theorists, the possibility of changing position in the core/semi-periphery/periphery
hierarchy is very rare. Hence, the core, periphery, and semi-periphery remain as
the enduring features of the capitalist world-economy. Therefore, the World
Systems theory is a critic of liberal and modernization theories of socio-economic
and political development. World Systems theory, further, holds that the semi-
periphery states divide the periphery and it makes a unified opposition against
the core a difficult task. The core maintains its hegemony due to the divisions
within the semi-periphery-periphery camps. However, the World Systems theory
argues that the contradictions within the capitalist global economy will lead to
the decline of capitalism and its replacement by socialism.
82
Check Your Progress Exercise 1 Dependency Theory

1) Give a brief introduction of dependency theory.
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
6.3 MAJOR CONCEPTS IN DEPENDENCY

THEORY
6.3.1 Dependency as the Result of a Historical Process
Dependency is the result of a specific historical process. Through centuries of
colonialism and domination, the colonial and dominant capitalist powers
restructured the socio-economic institutions of the colonies and underdeveloped
regions; and integrated the economies of these countries and regions as resource
suppliers into the world economy in accordance with the requirement of
capitalism. As a result, the colonies and other underdeveloped regions became
the suppliers of primary commodities and the markets for the finished goods
manufactured by the colonial and dominant capitalist economies. Dependency
theorists argue that even after the end of formal colonialism, the structure of the
world economy remains without any change. Former colonies and other resource
producing regions remain in the periphery of global capitalism whose centre, or
core, remained for centuries in Europe and shifted to the USA over the last one
hundred years.
6.3.2 Core, Periphery, Semi-Periphery, and Enclave Economy

Dependency theorists categorize the economies into the two broad categories,
i.e., the core and the periphery. The core economies are the developed countries
in the global north (e.g. in Europe, the USA, and Japan) characterized by advanced
technology and industries, supported by powerful state governments, a strong
middle class (bourgeoisie) and a large working class (proletariat). In addition to
the core, terms such as the ‘centre’ and ‘metropolitan’ are also used to denote the
industrially developed countries in the global north. The terms such as periphery
and satellite are referred to the developing and least developed countries in the
global south (e.g. in Africa, South Asia, and Latin America), which are dependent
on the production of primary commodities. These countries are featured with
weak states, a small middle class and a large number of low-skill and agriculture
workers. In addition to the core and the periphery, Immanuel Wallerstein sets
forth an intermediate position, i.e., the semi-periphery, in terms of its economic
condition. The semi-peripheral states are the emerging economies such as India,
China, South Africa, and Brazil, characterized by attributes such as modern
83
Approaches industries, cities, and large peasantry. These states are also witnessing a shift
from less profitable peripheral-type economic activities to more profitable core-
type ones.
Dependency theorists define ‘enclave economy’ as a territory within the periphery,

in which foreign capital is invested for extracting raw materials such as minerals,
oil, plantations, etc. Even though the extractions in the enclave economies provide
some jobs for a small group of the population in the periphery, it does not improve
the economic condition of the periphery. However, its natural resources get
depleted in the process and the enclave continues to suffer from lack of
development.
6.3.3 Dependency Theory as a Critic of Liberal Theories

Liberal thinkers of economic development such as Adam Smith (1723-1790),
believed that economic activity should be spontaneous and freed from all forms
of regulations. Smith argued that if economic activities were allowed to operate
without regulations, then it would operate in accordance with its own rules and
bring immense progress in society. In tune with Smith, Jean-Baptiste Say (1767-
1830) supported laissez-faire (this French term refers to the policy, which allows
free functioning of the economy) and held that free functioning of the capitalist
economy without government intervention would naturally bring immense
prosperity and full employment in society. David Ricardo’s (1772-1823) theory
of comparative advantage provided an intellectual capital for free-trade. According
to Ricardo, a country’s situation such as climate, and other natural and artificial
factors provide a comparative advantage in producing certain commodities.
Therefore, each country can specialize in the production of those commodities
which has a comparative advantage, and through the promotion of free-trade all
countries can ensure the availability of commodities at the cheapest prices as
possible. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), who was the contemporary of Say and
Ricardo, held that popular democracy and free-trade would allow all human beings
to maximize their pleasure and minimize their pain. Bentham argued that it would
eventually result in the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Political
revolution in France and the Industrial Revolution in England and the resultant
mass political and economic participation, a massive flow of raw materials from
colonies, mass production of consumer goods, the rapid growth of markets in
Europe and its colonies worldwide, tremendous material advancement in Europe
set liberalism as a model for modern society.
However, the new socio-political and economic system which emerged in
industrial Europe and colonies worldwide were not free from problems. It created
class divisions within society between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The
new condition was conducive to exploitation and it gradually and steadily
degraded the status of the proletariat in every social standard. Initially, the
advocates of liberalism argued that problems created by industrialization would
be naturally resolved by the logic of the free market. They held that wealth would
flow from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat through the ‘trickle-down’ effect.
Eventually, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat would have a harmony of interests
and would finally settle all the socio-economic problems. Therefore, in order to
achieve this desirable condition, the liberals argued for more economic reforms
and minimum government intervention. However, growing disparities contrary
to the claims of the liberals later led to working-class movements and the formation
of Marxism, the radical ideology proposed by Karl Marx (1818-1883).
84
It should be noted that the centuries of European colonialism not only exhausted Dependency Theory
the economy of colonies worldwide, but also the former had restructured the
socio-economic and political systems of the latter. Hence, European powers could
design their colonies as the provider of raw materials and the repository for capital
and finished goods. This created a dependency, which continued even after the
colonies became formally independent. Thus, dependency theorists refute the
claims of the theory of comparative advantage espoused by liberal thinkers.
According to dependency theorists ‘theory of comparative advantage is a
damaging myth’.
6.3.4 Critique of Modernization Theory

Modernization theory is a perspective that the less developed countries can achieve
development through accelerating economic growth and replacing the traditional
values and socio-political and economic systems with that of the developed
countries. Modernization theory equates development with mass industrialization,
a higher level of economic growth, and the liberal democratic values. The best-
known modernization theory was set forth by Walt Whitman Rostow, an American
economist and political theorist, who played a major role in shaping US foreign
policy toward Latin America in the 1960s.
According to Rostow, all countries have to undergo four stages of economic

development for achieving the status of a developed country. The first stage is
the ‘traditional’ stage, in which people do not subscribe to the work ethic, save
little money, hold that the economic backwardness is part of their fate. Therefore,
during this stage, people do not think much about changing their living standard
so that very little social change takes place at this stage. The second stage is the
‘take-off’ stage. During this stage, less developed countries think about changing
their future and discard traditional values. Due to these reasons, people start to
save and invest money, promote competitions that lead to achievements, and
economic growth is visible at this stage. Foreign assistance in the form of aid
and assistance is very essential in entering the third stage of development. During
the third stage, the country improves its technology, set up new industries and
moves toward technological maturity. This stage also witnesses the transformation
of traditional values and social institutions into that of the developed countries.
At the fourth stage, the country enters into the final phase of development, featured
with higher levels of economic growth, consumption and standard of living.
Dependency theorists hold that modernization theory is ethnocentric and ignores

the social and cultural arrangements in other parts of the world and to their unique
historical experiences. The proponents of modernization failed to examine the
impact of colonization on former colonies, especially in figuring out the historical
process over centuries that created an unfavourable condition for developing
countries. According to dependency theorists, modernization theorists have
ignored the exploitation inherent in the economic relations between the developed
and the developing countries in terms of trade and investment. Therefore,
dependency theorists argue Rostow’s modernization theory emanates from ‘one
size fits all’ assumption and it fails to address the real reasons for the
underdevelopment of the peripheral countries.
85
Approaches 6.3.5 Development of Underdevelopment
‘Development of underdevelopment’ is a concept proposed by Andre Gunder
Frank to denote the deteriorating economic condition of the peripheral states as
the result of their dependency on the core. According to Frank, underdevelopment
is a condition fundamentally different from undeveloped. Undeveloped is a
condition of a region, in which its resources are not being utilized. For instance,
Asia, Americas, and Africa during the pre-colonial period were undeveloped.
Their land and natural resources were not utilized on a scale consistent with
their potential. However, European powers during the colonial period extracted
natural resources of their colonies. As a result, the resources of the colonies
drained but it did not provide any benefit to the colonies, however, the economies
of the colonial powers improved at the cost of the resources of the colonies.
Even after the end of the colonialism, the core countries retain their dominance
over the peripheral states. Thus, the exploitation of the core continues to date,
and growing economic relations between the core and periphery brings advantage
to the former and disadvantage to the latter. In other words, dependency will
further exploit the natural resources of the periphery, deteriorate the economic
condition of the periphery, and bring prosperity to the core. Thus, Frank’s concept
of ‘the development of underdevelopment’ argues that development in the core
countries always produces underdevelopment and poverty in the periphery.
6.3.6 Neoliberal Globalization Entrenching the Dependency

Most of the dependency theorists hold that the current phase of globalization is
‘neoliberal globalization dominated by transnational corporations (TNCs)’. As a
result, the production of manufacturing goods concentrates in the hands of a few
TNCs, which makes an oligopoly market at the global level. According to the
dependency theorists, this will slow down production and speed up income
polarization. Neoliberal globalization also witnesses increasing dependency of
the peripheral states on the core and international financial institutions for capital.
This drastically cuts down the ‘sovereignty’ of peripheral states in determining
and implementing their policies, as they are dictated by the international financial
institutions. For instance, the Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) set forth
by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) compelled peripheral states to roll
back welfare schemes and adopt free market economic policies. Through the
payments of loan interests, royalties, profits and the large scale imports of finished
goods the peripheral states transfer a significant amount of money to the core.
This transfer of money creates a fund crunch in the peripheral states, and it will
adversely affect their capacity in investing for the development of their domestic
industry and infrastructure.
There are a number of empirical studies on the impact of dependency on

developing countries in the global south. For instance, Richard J. Barnet and
Ronald E. Muller’s work titled, Global Reach: The Power of the Multinational
Corporations, (1974) was an inquiry into the exploitation by the multinational
corporations. The authors argue that far from creating jobs and infusing technology
in the global south, companies like General Motors ‘drained off’ local investment
capital. Teresa Hayter’s book titled, Aid as Imperialism (1971), argues that foreign
assistance in the forms of loans, technology, and arms have been used to bolster
oppressive dictatorships rather than lay foundations for development in the
countries belonging to the global south. Foreign aid for infrastructure development
86
did not uplift the living standards of the people in a developing country. Rather, Dependency Theory
it distorted their economy and transformed them into debtor nations. For instance,
Brazil and Mexico became debtors in the 1980s due to loan repayment. Thus,
dependency theorists argue that the neoliberal globalization dominated by TNCs
and financial institutions will enhance the economic gap between the core and
peripheral states, and it will further deteriorate the economic condition of the
peripheral states.
1) What are the major concepts in dependency theory?
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
6.4 CRITICISM
Dependency theory emerged as the critique of liberal and modernization approach
to development. However, in recent years, dependency theory has been the target
of its opponents (i.e., liberal and modernization theories), and interestingly, it
has also been criticized by Marxist thinkers. Liberal and modernization theorists
argue that the success of Asian Tigers [i.e., Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and
Hong Kong] nullify the claims of dependency theory. The Asian Tigers have
succeeded in achieving their target of rapid industrialization and maintaining a
higher growth rate. Moreover, they are in a position to compete with and challenge
the economies of the developed countries in the global north. Liberal thinkers
argue that dependency theory is unable to explain the reasons for the success of
the economies such as Asian Tigers. Political scientists like Gabriel Almond
observe that dependency is merely political propaganda rather than a theory.
Liberal thinker John Goldthorpe and the Brandt Report (1980) criticize radical
dependency due to its biased opinion on the economic relations between the
core and periphery. According to the radical position of Andre Gunder Frank,
dependency will only enhance the pace of ‘development of underdevelopment’
and the core is not interested in the development of the periphery. However, the
liberals argue that the core needs the periphery to grow and industrialize as a
source of new investment and new market. Further, the Brandt Report suggests
that the ‘rebalancing’ of the world economic system in favour of the global south
(peripheral states) is desirable than its abolition. In his later work titled, Crisis in
the World Economy (1980), even Frank changed his position on ‘development of
underdevelopment’ and admitted that industrial development is possible in the
peripheral states. Likewise, Fernando Henrique Cardoso wrote and explained
Brazil’s relative success in industrialization and reduction in its dependence on
raw material exports from the 1970s onwards. Developments in the world
capitalism opened opportunities to industrialize while still remaining within the
87
Approaches overall context of a dependent economy. While Brazil did experience what
Cardoso called ‘associated dependent development’, the neighbouring Bolivia
did not, meaning thereby that dependency in terms of its dynamics differs from
country to country and region to region. Radical dependency is also criticized
for its preoccupied position that the problem lays in ‘capitalism’. For instance,
dependency relationships existed between the communist core (erstwhile Soviet
Union) and its periphery (countries allied with the Soviet Union during the Cold
War period). Radical dependency theorists ignored the dependency relationships
within the countries in the communist bloc.
In addition to the criticism from liberal and modernization thinkers, dependency

subjects to the criticism of Marxist writers. For instance, Samir Amin in his
work titled, Unequal Development: An Essay on the Social Formations of
Peripheral Capitalism (1976), observes that historical analysis of radical
dependency theory represented by Frank is too generalized. Frank’s theory fails
to show unevenness of the development of the peripheral states, ranging from
the backwardness of Ethiopia to the growing industries of Asian Tigers – a point
also made by Cardoso. Radical dependency is also charged with its focus only
on the relations between the core and periphery while ignoring the dependency
within the peripheral states. For instance, while outspoken about the dominance
of TNCs from the core states in the peripheral states, radical dependency ignores
the domination of TNCs from the peripheral states in their counterparts.
According to Argentine post-Marxism thinker Ernesto Laclau, dependency theory

is not a true Marxist analysis. In his book titled, Politics and Ideology in Marxist
Theory: Capitalism-Fascism-Populism (1977), Laclau opines that Frank’s
dependency theory is a mere narration of the flow of surplus from the periphery
to the core. What is missing in this narration is the Marxist analysis of relations
of production and the mode of production. It also fails to provide a Marxist
account of the stages of economic transformation of peripheral states’ from
feudalism to capitalism. Moreover, Frank is criticized for missing an important
component of Marxism, the internal dynamics of the class struggle in his analysis.
Unlike treating dependency as a process of ‘underdevelopment’, thinkers such

as Bill Warren argue it as a progressive stage. In his book, Imperialism: Pioneer
of Capitalism (1980), Warren opines that dependency plays a major role in
transforming the peripheral states from feudalism to capitalism, thereby advancing
its path to socialism. The core imparts not only skills, capital and technology to
the peripheral states but also the former makes the latter perfect for a ‘typical’
class struggle. As a result, the proletariats in the peripheral states become
conscious about exploitation and they will be able to organize against Western
capitalism.
1) What are the major points of criticism of dependency theory?
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
88
Dependency Theory
6.5 LET US SUM UP
Dependency theory has emerged as a critic of liberal and modernization theories
of socio-economic and political development. Liberal theories hold that
backwardness in the developing countries can be overcome with greater economic
relations with the developed countries and by replicating the socio-economic
institutions of the developed countries in the developing countries. However,
dependency theory challenged all these arguments of liberal theories on the ground
that the greater economic relations with the developed countries have only caused
the exploitation of the developing countries. Dependency theory argues that
economic relations between the core and periphery have led to the overexploitation
of natural resources in the peripheries, the flow of surplus from periphery to the
core, widening the gap between the developed and developing countries, and it
has become a perennial process of the ‘development of underdevelopment’. One
of the salient features of dependency theory is that it could set forth a theory
from the perspective of the developing countries. Dependency theory holds that
the backwardness in the developing countries is the result of a historical process
emanating from the emergence of capitalism. Dependency has established through
colonialism and even after the end of formal colonialism, the former colonial
masters could retain their control over the periphery through economic relations.
Contrary to the belief of modernization theorists that the real cause of
backwardness of the developing countries is internal, dependency theorists argue
that it is external factors that prevent them from development. Dependency theory
is not a unified approach and there are three major versions on the basis of
analyzing dependency. Even though dependency theory is criticized by both liberal
and Marxist thinkers, it gives us insights on the growing inequalities between
the countries in the global north and the global south; and as to why countries
and regions in the global south remain dependent and underdeveloped.
6.6 REFERENCES
Baran, Paul A. (1957). The Political Economy of Growth, New York: Monthly
Review Press.
Emmanuel, Arghiri (1972). Unequal Exchange: A Study of the Imperialism of
Trade, New York: Monthly Review Press.
Evans, Peter (1979). Dependent Development: The Alliance of Multinational,
State, and Local Capital in Brazil, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Evans, Peter (2005). “Counterhegemonic Globalization: Transnational Social
Movements in the Contemporary Global Political Economy”, in The Handbook
of Political Sociology: States, Civil Societies, and Globalization, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Farmer, Brian R. (1999). The Question of Dependency and Economic
Development: A Quantitative Analysis, Lanham: Lexington Books.
Firebaugh, Glenn (2003). The New Geography of Global Income Inequality,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Frank, Andre Gunder (1967). Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin
America: Historical Studies of Chile and Brazil, New York: Monthly Review
Press.
89
Approaches Kohli, Atul (2004). State-Directed Development: Political Power and
Industrialization in the Global Periphery, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Wallerstein, Immanuel. (2004). World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction,
Durham: Duke University Press.

EXERCISES
Dependency theory is a critic of liberal theories of socio-economic
and political development
Definition given by Theotonio Dos Santos
Three different version of dependency theory: moderate, radical and
world system theory
Dependency as the result of a historical process
Core, periphery, semi-periphery and enclave economy
Dependency theory is a critic of liberal theory; modernization theory;
development of underdevelopment; and neoliberal globalization
entrenching the dependency
Liberal thinkers argue dependency theory is unable to explain the
reasons for the success of the economies such as Asian Tigers
Political scientists like Gabriel Almond observe that dependency is
merely political propaganda rather than a theory
Liberals argue that the core needs the periphery to grow and industrialize
as a source of new investment and new market
Marxist critique of dependency theory is that it is not a true Marxist
analysis
Internal dynamics of the class struggle is missing in dependency theory
90
Dependency Theory
UNIT 7 CONSTRUCTIVISM*
Structure
7.0 Objectives
7.1 Introduction
7.2 What is Constructivism?
7.3 Philosophical Foundations of Constructivism
7.4 Major Assumptions of Constructivism
7.4.1 Social Construction of Reality
7.4.2 Influence of Ideational Factors
7.4.3 Mutual Constitution of Agents and Structure
7.4.4 International Anarchy
7.5 Different Versions of Constructivism
7.5.1 Modernist
7.5.2 Modernist Linguistic or Rule-oriented Constructivism
7.5.3 Radical
7.5.4 Critical
7.6 Let Us Sum Up
7.7 References
7.0 OBJECTIVES
The aim of this Unit is to examine the uniqueness of Constructivism among
International Relations theories. After going through this Unit, you would be
able to:
Explain the philosophical foundations of Constructivism
Narrate the salient features of Constructivism and
Examine the major versions of Constructivism
7.1 INTRODUCTION
Social Constructivism or Constructivism is a theory in International Relations
which holds that developments in international relations are being constructed
through social processes in accordance with ideational factors such as identity,
norms, rules, etc. This standpoint of Constructivism is contrary to the ‘atomized’
or ‘individualist’ and ‘materialist’ interpretation of international relations by the
mainstream theories in IR [i.e., Neorealism and Neoliberalism]. Both Neorealism
and Neoliberalism hold that material factors such as military capacity and
economic resources are catalysts for developments in international relations. Since
the nature of international relations is anarchical, the actions of nation-states are
heavily depended on their self-interest (i.e., to augment the military capabilities
and economic resources), and calculations about consequences (i.e, to avoid
*
91
Approaches actions that adversely affect states’ security). In such considerations, there is no
room for normative concerns and sociability. Thus in an anarchical world, states
are concerned about their (self) security; hence, the study of international relations
should be focused on material factors that affect state security. This approach of
mainstream theories neglected the ideational factors, which influence the
behaviour of nation-states.
The developments since the end of the Cold War give impetus to Constructivism.
For instance, Realism and its variant Neorealism hold that stability of the
international system is maintained through a balance of power between major
states and their alliances. Therefore, the proponents of Neorealism believed that
some states would emerge to balance the United States to offset its power in the
absence of the Soviet Union. They also predicted the emergence of new great
powers in a multipolar system. Kenneth Waltz, the chief advocate of Neorealism,
forecasted the rise of new great powers in a short span of time. However, it has
not happened since the end of the Cold War. The developments since the Cold
War also challenged the core assumption of liberalism, liberal optimism or a
belief in progress. Francis Fukuyama’s essay titled, The End of History, which
was published in 1989 and his book titled, The End of History and the Last Man,
which was published in 1992 were about the ultimate victory of liberal values.
According to Fukuyama, the disintegration of the Soviet Union marked the
dismantling of ideological divisions and thereby the world witnessed the
universalization of liberal values. In a similar vein, Robert Keohane shares the
liberal optimism about progress. Liberalism strongly believes that international
relations can be transformed from conflict to cooperation through interdependence
and democracy. Many believed that the victory and universalization of liberal
values after the end of the Cold War would make the world a better place to live
in. However, the world has been witnessing the resurgence of civil wars,
international terrorism, non-state violence and genocide, ‘failed’ states and state
itself involved in ‘ethnic cleansing’ since the end of the Cold War. These
developments undermined the liberal optimism about peace and cooperation at
the domestic and international levels. Thus, the developments since the end of
the Cold War have questioned the ability of Realism and Liberalism and their
variants in predicting and explaining international relations. The critics of Realism
and Liberalism hold that the emphasis on material factors while neglecting the
ideational factors are the major reasons for weakness of these theories in
understanding the recent developments in international relations. The incidents
ranging from genocides to civil wars are very much related to the ideational
factors like ‘identity’; therefore, a new paradigm in analyzing these developments
became the need of the hour.
Moreover, the end of the Cold War and the increasing pace of globalization
drastically altered the international environment hitherto. The new developments
triggered a new set of problems and opportunities for nation-states, transnational
corporations, and civil society groups. At the same time, nation-states across the
world witnessed serious debates on questions such as, what is national identity
and what is national interest? This was to re-shape their policies to address the
changing international environment. A ‘Constructivist lens’ was required in this
regard. In sum, the new developments at the domestic as well as international
relations led to the rise of Constructivism in IR.
92
Constructivism
7.2 WHAT IS CONSTRUCTIVISM?
The term ‘Constructivism’ encompasses a wide range of theoretical perspectives
whose converging point is the view that ‘we have no direct access to reality’.
But the Social world that is accessible to us, is constructed through our social
relations. Our social relations are constructed through the ideas we share about
the world. In other words, we construct the ‘social world’ in accordance with our
ideas (about the world on the basis of our experiences and perceptions about it).
It holds a view that the social world and our ideas are mutually constitutive.
Constructivism in the academic discipline of IR argues that international relations
are a social construction. States, alliances, and international institutions are the
products of human interaction in the social world. They are being constructed
through human action imbued with social values, identity, assumptions, rules,
language, etc. Constructivism is a three-layered understanding of international
relations involving metaphysics, social theory, and IR theory. First, Constructivism
is a metaphysical stance. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, which examines
and interprets the nature of reality. Therefore the scholars who treat Constructivism
as a metaphysical stance seek to examine and interpret the real nature of
international relations. Second, constructivism as a social theory focuses on the
role of knowledge and knowledgeable agents in the constitution of social reality.
In other words, Constructivists examine the role of shared understanding, and
discourses in the construction of international relations. Shared understanding
means the perception of people or nation-states about their counterparts and the
social world. This shared understanding is formed through perceptions about the
other (people or nation-states) and interactions in society or international relations.
Our perceptions and interactions inform some knowledge about the other and
this knowledge constructs social reality. Thus, our knowledge about social reality
is constructed through our perceptions and interactions. Finally, Constructivism
as an IR theory seeks to conduct research on sound social ontological and
epistemological foundations. In other words, IR Constructivism holds that
international relations are a social construction; therefore, its study requires a
particular set of methods. Constructivism enhanced the scope of IR by
incorporating ideational factors such as identity, norms, and rule into its fold.
For instance, IR Constructivism examines the role of identities, norms in the
constitution of national interests, and the social construction of new territorial
and non-territorial transnational regions.
The term ‘Constructivism’ was coined for International Relations by Nicholas
Greenwood Onuf in his book, World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social
Theory and International Relations [1989]. However, it was the works of
Alexander Wendt especially his 1992 article, Anarchy is what States Make of it:
The Social Construction of Power Politics, and his 1999 book, Social Theory of
International Politics which popularized Constructivism in IR. Wendt’s version
of Constructivism, a state-centric and structural one, helped it to find a place
among the mainstream theories of International Relations.
7.3 PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS OF

CONSTRUCTIVISM
Even though Constructivism is a recent entrant into the club of IR theories, its
genesis can be traced back to the works of German philosopher Immanuel Kant 93
Approaches (1724–1804). Kant heralded a Constructivist turn in epistemology by setting
forth a viewpoint that the production of knowledge is influenced by the
consciousness. Having been influenced by Kant, Neo-Kantians of the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries proposed an ‘objective hermeneutics’,
which stressed the importance of understanding consciousness. During this period
a number of German thinkers came forward to state that human sciences [such
as history, literature, law, politics, etc.] could not be studied like natural sciences.
These thinkers argued for a separate methodology for human sciences. The most
influential of them were Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911), Edmund Husserl (1869-
1938), Max Weber (1864-1920) and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 – 1900). The
works of these thinkers had immensely contributed to the birth of Constructivism
in IR. For instance, Dilthey held that the subject matter of human sciences is the
‘human mind’, which reflects in languages, actions, and institutions. In order to
understand the human mind one has to examine cultural aspects and historical
processes in which languages, actions, and institutions are constructed. Husserl
introduced phenomenology as a method for the description and analysis of
consciousness. Weber’s contribution to Constructivism is that he introduced
‘verstehen’ as a method to understand and explain the meaning of motivations
that lead to actions. Nietzsche challenged the concept of ‘objectivity’ and ‘value
neutrality’ in social theories. According to Nietzsche, our statement about the
world is highly influenced by our assumptions and convictions about the world.
Therefore, the piece of knowledge produced by a scientist is inevitably ‘subjective’
rather than the result of an ‘objective’ analysis.
Another influential figure who contributed to the birth of Constructivism is

Austrian philosopher Alfred Schutz (1899–1959). According to Schutz, we always
try to typify people and things to understand them. Further, Schutz argues that
our knowledge about people and things are highly influenced by our perceptions
and interactions with them. Having been influenced by the works of Schutz,
American sociologists Peter Ludwig Berger (1929 – 2017) and Thomas Luckmann
(1927 – 2016) jointly introduced the concept of the ‘social construction of reality’.
According to them, interactions of people in society evolve concepts about human
behaviour and these concepts become habituated and eventually institutionalized.
Our knowledge about society, people, things or our conception of reality is
constructed through our interaction in society and is the result of our
interpretations on the basis of our experiences in these interactions. In other
words, the reality is socially constructed which is the result of our interpretations
on the basis of our experiences in interactions. Berger and Luckmann published
a book titled, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of
Knowledge, (1966) on this theme.
Works of the French philosophers also had profoundly influenced the birth and
evolution of Constructivism. For instance, Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) argued
that social phenomena are as real as ‘things’ (material objects) and should be
studied as such. His argument firmly established the Constructivists’ concept of
the primacy of the ideational factors. Other important French thinkers who
influenced the germination of Constructivism were Michel Foucault (1926 –
1984) and Jacques Derrida (1930 – 2004). Postmodernism proposed by Foucault
was aimed at uncovering the discourse and power structures that control practices
in society. Discourse can be defined as ‘language-in-action’ or it is about what
we say (language) about things in conversation and how we do (practice) things
in our everyday lives. Foucault believed that discourse or ‘language-in-action’
94 has power. In other words, discourse designs the rules in society about ‘what
should be’ and ‘what should not be’. Poststructuralism set forth by Derrida aimed Constructivism
at deconstructing the dominant readings of reality.
Constructivism came into existence as a response to the ‘third debate’ in IR. The
third debate, between Neorealism and Neoliberalism, was a synthesis movement
to make IR more scientific. It succeeded in reaching a common ontological and
epistemological position between Neorealism and Neoliberalism. Both theories
hold that ‘material resources’ are the catalysts for development in international
relations, the structure of international system shapes the behaviour of nation-
states and nation-states take their decisions on the basis of the logic of
consequences. Epistemologically, both theories adopted positivism to make IR
more scientific. Positivism believes that natural as well as social worlds are
functioning in accordance with certain universal laws. There are regularities in
the functioning of natural and the social world. Due to this reason, the same
methods can be applied in the study of the natural and social world. Therefore,
social science research should also be based on objectivity and value neutrality,
and on the empirical validation and falsification of facts. Mainstream IR theories’
reliance on positivism triggered the ‘fourth debate’ between the proponents of
positivism and postpositivism in IR in the late 1980s and that led to a number of
postpositivist/postmodernist/poststructuralist theories including Constructivism.
When narrating the genesis of Constructivism one cannot ignore the influence of
the English School, which is considered to be the precursor to IR constructivism.
The English School interprets international relations as being social and historical.
Moreover, it believes in the existence of an international society driven by norms
and identity.
1) What do you understand by Constructivism?
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
7.4 MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS OF

CONSTRUCTIVISM
7.4.1 Social Construction of Reality
Constructivists believe that reality is a project under constant construction. Instead
of treating the social world as a pre-given entity, Constructivists consider it as a
‘world as coming into being’. Social reality is derived from inter-subjective
knowledge and our interpretations about the social world. This is contrary to the
functioning of the celestial body. For instance, Sun, Moon, Earth and other planets
of our solar system are functioning in accordance with certain objective laws.
95
Approaches Our understanding and interpretation of the universe cannot influence and alter
its functioning. However, social reality is constituted of our inter-subjective (or
shared) knowledge and interpretations about the social world and this may
influence and alter our social relations. Here, the knowledge is constructed inter-
subjectively, which means the knowledge is produced in the interactions amongst
people. For instance, Alexander Wendt in his influential article, Anarchy is what
States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics, explains how
knowledge is constructed inter-subjectively by depicting the story of ‘Alter’ and
‘Ego’. Alter and Ego, are two imagined characters, who meet each other for the
first time. Therefore, both do not have any idea about the nature of the other,
which means they do not have any friendship and enmity beforehand. In such a
condition, their interactions will inform them about the nature of the other –
whether the counterpart is trustworthy or unreliable, friendly or hostile. The same
thing is happening in international relations, where interactions among nation-
states inform them about the nature of international relations, who are the friendly
nations and enemies. Constructivists also hold that the experiences during the
course of interactions and the interpretations may change the imagery about the
other. In other words, interactions and interpretations may transform the enmity
to friendship and the vice versa. The book titled, The Culture of National Security:
Norms and Identity in World Politics, edited by Peter J. Katzenstein (1996) sets
forth the argument that international relations do not function independently of
human action and cognition. Moreover, the book argues that norms and ideas
play a major role in defining the identities of actors thereby prescribe the proper
behaviour for actors. This is just in contrast to the logic of consequences or
rational-choice suggested by Neorealism and Neoliberalism.
7.4.2 Influence of Ideational Factors

Since the reality is socially constructed, we cannot understand social realities
(including international relations) by examining only material forces (such as
military power, economic resources). Instead, Constructivists believe that
understanding of social reality requires the examination of both ideational
(identity, culture, norms) and material factors. For instance, a North Korean
nuclear weapon is similar to a French nuclear weapon in terms of its material
attribute and destructive effects. However, as far as the United States of America
(USA) is concerned, the nuclear weapon of North Korea is dangerous and the
French one is not. Both nuclear weapons get different meanings according to the
nature of the USA’s relations with France and North Korea. Here, ‘identity’ as an
ideational factor gives different meanings to nuclear weapons, as the USA treats
the French as its ally and North Korea as its enemy (and a potential threat to the
USA’s security). The notion of identity is very much related to a binary of ‘we’
and ‘other’. History, culture, political processes, and social interactions are playing
a major role in forming this binary. For instance, the common history of ancestors,
sharing liberal values, mutual understanding and cordial relations inform both
the USA and France that they have a lot of things in common; therefore, both of
them consider each other as a friend. However, on the basis of the same criteria,
the USA realizes that North Korea is the ‘other’. Constructivists argue that
identities are socially constructed through interactions. They, further suggest that
the behaviour of nation-states in the international system is not driven solely by
the distribution of power, but also depends on the ‘distribution of identities’.
96 That is, patterns of cooperation and conflict depend on how states understand
themselves and others in the international system, rather than solely on material Constructivism
factors.
7.4.3 Mutual Constitution of Agents and Structure

Structuration theory was illustrated by the eminent sociologist Anthony Giddens
in a number of his books starting from, New Rules of Sociological Method (1976)
and The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration (1984).
Structuration theory of Giddens argues that structures and agents are mutually
constitutive. Constructivists such as Nicholas Onuf and Alexander Wendt
borrowed Giddens’s theory of structuration to explain the mutual influence of
agents and structure in the field of international relations. According to Onuf
‘people and societies construct, or constitute, each other’. At the same time,
Wendt used the Giddens’s structuration theory to challenge the Neorealist
understanding of the relationship between the structure of the international system
and nation-states proposed by Kenneth Waltz. According to Kenneth Waltz, it is
the structure of the international system that influences behaviour of units (nation-
states or agents) and the other way round is not possible. On the contrary, Wendt
argues that nation-states and the structure of the international system are mutually
constitutive. Not only that, Wendt in his article, Anarchy is what States Make of
it: The Social Construction of Power Politics, puts more weight on agents (nation-
states) over the structure (of the international system) in terms of one’s influence
on the other. In other words, Wendt’s notion of agent-structure relationship is
contrary to that of Neorealist and Neoliberal understanding of the agent-structure
relationship.
7.4.4 International Anarchy

In IR, ‘anarchy’, is conceived as a social system that lacks legitimate institutions
of authority. During the grand debate (neo-neo debate) between Neorealism and
Neoliberalism, there was a consensus about the nature of anarchy. Both Neorealists
and Neoliberals held that the absence of a world government was the major
reason for international anarchy, which created a ‘state of nature’ outside nation-
states. Hence, Neorealists preferred a self-help mechanism to address international
anarchy. On the contrary, Neoliberals suggested interdependence for mitigating
anarchy and overcoming insecurity in the international system. However,
Constructivists have a different opinion about international anarchy. For instance,
Nicholas Onuf holds that the absence of a world government does not lead to
disorder and violence. Rather, there are three categories of rules (i.e. ‘instruction-
rules’, ‘directive-rules’, and ‘commitment-rules’) to constitute and regulate
international relations. Instruction-rules set forth general principles of international
relations (such as sovereignty, human rights, international law, etc.) and their
importance in ensuring peaceful international relations. Directive-rules have
provisions for protecting these principles and punishing offenders. For instance,
invading another nation-state is the violation of state ‘sovereignty’, and then the
international community will join together against the offender. Nation-states
entering into treaties on human rights and environment means they promise to
protect them, means commitment-rules play a significant role in international
relations. Thus, according to Onuf international relations are regulated by rules,
and international anarchy is a rule by no sovereign body, and therefore a rule by
everyone associated with the aforesaid rules. Wendt also negates the Neorealist
and Neoliberal assumption about international anarchy. According to Wendt, there
is no ‘logic’ of anarchy apart from the practices and interactions among nation- 97
Approaches state. Then the nature of anarchy is determined by ideational factors, practices,
and interactions among nation-states. The relationship among friends will be
very cordial, strangers will be lukewarm, and enemies will be hostile in the state
of anarchy. Thus, the outcome of anarchy will be shaped by the interactions and
shared understandings of nation-states.
1) What are the Major assumptions of Constructivism?
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
7.5 DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF

CONSTRUCTIVISM
According to Emanuel Adler, Constructivist approaches can be classified
according to the type of hermeneutics they use – objective or subjective; and the
cognitive interest they pursue – control or emancipation. According to these
criteria, Constructivism can be categorized into four main types: Modernist;
Modernist Linguistic or Rule-Oriented Constructivism; Radical; and Critical.
7.5.1 Modernist Constructivism

Modernist Constructivism is characterized by ‘objective hermeneutics’ with a
‘conservative interest in understanding and explaining social reality’.
Hermeneutics is a method of interpretation and the ‘objective hermeneutics’ is a
method proposed by Neo-Kantians in accordance with Immanuel Kant’s
understanding of knowledge production. According to Kant, even though the
knowledge is about objective reality, it is filtered through our consciousness. In
other words, our knowledge (about an object) is highly influenced by our
consciousness. Having been influenced by the Kantian notion of knowledge, the
Neo-Kantians argue that learning is a process of applying a priori forms our
minds on the object of study. Therefore, ‘objective hermeneutics’ seeks to
understand consciousness and motivations that lead to actions. It also relies on
cause and effect analysis and reconstruction of historical processes to understand
particular events. In other words, a particular event in history or a social fact is
the result of a concrete historical sequence and the effect of certain causes.
Building on ‘objective hermeneutics’ the modernist constructivists believe that
positivist methods are applicable in the study of developments in international
relations. Another characteristic of modernist constructivism is its conservative
interest in understanding and explaining social reality instead of human
emancipation. For instance, according to Alexander Wendt, the basic tenets of
Constructivism are “(a) structures of human association are determined primarily
by shared ideas rather than material forces, and (b) the identities and interests of
98 purposive actors are constructed by these shared ideas rather than given by nature”.
Here, the intention of Wendt is only to explain the basic tenets of Constructivism Constructivism
rather than human emancipation. In other words, Wendt does not express any
interest in using his understandings of norms, identities to improve the condition
of humanity. Wendt’s constructivism, also known as Structural Constructivism,
is the modified version of the international structure proposed by Neorealism
and Neoliberalism. According to Wendt, both Neorealism and Neoliberalism see
the structure of the international system through a material lens. For Neorealists,
the structure of the international system is featured by the distribution of material
capabilities. Neoliberals see structure as capabilities and institutions. However,
Wendt treats the structure as a distribution of ideas. In addition to Wendt, Emanuel
Adler, Peter Katzenstein, John Ruggie, Thomas Risse-Kappen, Michael Barnett,
Mlada Bukovansky, Jeffrey Checkel, Martha Finnemore and Jeffrey Legro are
also considered to be the major proponents of modernist constructivism. Modernist
constructivism is also known as traditional constructivism and neoclassical
constructivism.
7.5.2 Modernist Linguistic or Rule-Oriented Constructivism

Modernist Linguistic Constructivists such as Nicholas Onuf argue that
international relations are regulated by rules and these rules are constituted by
the structures of language. Due to this reason, Modernist Linguistic Constructivists
employ ‘subjective hermeneutics’, which is a belief that objective knowledge is
impossible since the ‘reality is the creation of language’. Onuf, further argues
that the rules in international relations are statements about ‘what should do’.
‘What’ informs the actors about the ‘standard behaviour’ according to each
situation in international relations. ‘Should’ is a requirement that each actor in
international relations has to follow that standard behaviour. These rules develop
from three categories of speech acts, according to their function. They are
respectively ‘instruction-rules’, ‘directive-rules’, and ‘commitment-rules’. Speech
acts can be simply defined as a linguistic performance in the form of a command,
requests, promises, etc. Here, the communicator through speech acts influences
the audience to do something. Like speech acts, the aforementioned rules seek to
influence international relations. Instruction-rules inform about values and ideas
or concepts in international relations, the importance of respecting them and the
consequences of disregarding them. For instance, the instruction-rule, ‘to respect
state sovereignty’, means nation-states in the international system have to respect
one another’s sovereignty. Disregarding sovereignty is a bad practice because it
may lead to war. Rules in the form of directive speech act or directive-rules say
what should be done and also sets forth specific consequences of the violation of
the rule. For instance, violation of the directive-rule, ‘respect state sovereignty’,
will have provisions to punish the offenders through military intervention and
trade sanctions. Commitment-rules are the promises made by nation-states to act
in a particular way in international relations. Nation-states conclude international
treaties to protect the environment and human rights are the best example for
commitment-rule.
The scholars associated with Modernist Linguistic Constructivism other than

Nicholas Onuf are Friedrich Kratochwil, Karen Litfin, Neta Crawford, Christian
Reus-Smit, Jutta Weldes, and Ted Hopf. Modernist Linguistic Constructivists
examine how discourse and speech acts construct social reality. Like Modernist
Constructivists, Modernist Linguistic Constructivists also hold ‘conservative
cognitive interests’- an interest only in the interpretation of developments in
international relations, rather than the emancipation of humanity. 99
Approaches 7.5.3 Radical Constructivism
Radical Constructivism is highly influenced by the works of German philosophers
such as Martin Heidegger (1889 -1976), Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889—1951),
and French philosophers Michel Foucault (1926-1984) and Jacques Derrida
(1930-2004). Heidegger and Wittgenstein held that social facts are constituted
by structures of language; therefore, both of them challenged positivism and
objectivity in the study of social facts. At the same time, the focus of the
postmodernism suggested by Foucault was to expose the relations between power
and knowledge. Poststructuralism proposed by Derrida tried to deconstruct the
dominant readings of reality. Due to the influence of these philosophers, the
Radical Constructivists adopted a subjective hermeneutics to interpret social
reality, and unmask relationship between truth and power. The mainstream
theories of IR treat ‘anarchy’ as the permanent feature of international relations
and set forth measures to address this issue. However, Radical Constructivists
challenge this standpoint of mainstream theories. For instance, Richard Ashley
argues that anarchy is the result of nation-states’ reluctance to surrender their
sovereignty. By justifying anarchy, mainstream theories seek to retain the present
international system. Hence, Ashley accuses mainstream theorists of virtually
undermining the possibility of an alternative system. According to R.B.J. Walker,
the mainstream theories of IR have shrunk the scope of the discipline into a
prescription for managing national borders and Walker seeks to make IR more
inclusive by incorporating emerging issues of global importance. Walker’s Radical
Constructivism is also criticizing Realism for its pessimism. Walker argues that
theory and practice are intertwined with each other and theories set forth
prescriptions. Since Realism is pessimistic it can offer only cynicism and violent
practices. Feminist scholars such as Spike Peterson, J. Ann Tickner, Cynthia
Enloe, and Christine Sylvester also belong to the Radical Constructivism as they
question the masculine conceptualization of international relations and argue for
reforming core concepts in IR. For instance, the masculine conceptualization of
state, power, interest, and security shape the conduct of foreign policy in a
particular manner. For example, Realism narrates state with masculine
characteristics of sovereignty that emphasizes a hierarchical leader and the
capacity to wage war. According to Feminist scholars this conceptualization of
international relations shapes the practices of war and diplomacy. Therefore,
Feminist scholars seek to redefine and reform the concepts in IR. More than
understanding international relations, Radical Constructivists seek to emancipate
humankind from the oppressive forms of national and international systems.
7.5.4 Critical
Critical Constructivism combines the emancipatory mission with a pragmatist
approach and objective hermeneutics. This approach believes in the active role
of our mind in interpreting our experiences and observations and it holds that we
revise our beliefs according to our experience. It holds that theory is always
influenced by experiences and the former have to be made compatible with the
evidence. Andrew Linklater, Robert Cox, Heather Rae, and Paul Keal belong to
Critical Constructivism. Rather than explaining international relations ‘as it is’,
Critical Constructivists examining ‘how did it become that way’, and ‘how it
ought to be’. Further, the emancipatory mission drives them to move on to the
possibilities of transforming the present international order. Like Radical
Constructivists, Critical Constructivists also hold that the present international
100 system is not given. The present international system is the result of a historical
process, and this process has resulted in the inclusion and exclusion of certain Constructivism
people. Critical Constructivists like Andrew Linklater hold that an investigation
into this historical process is required for emancipating humanity. Robert Cox
also agrees with this standpoint. Heather Rae and Paul Keal are explaining how
the evolution of modern sovereign nation-state with exclusive territorial
jurisdiction is related to the exclusion of minority nonconformist identities from
the body politic.
1) What are the different versions of constructivism?
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
7.6 LET US SUM UP

Constructivism as a theory in IR argues that international relations are constructed
through social practices. This standpoint is contrary to the assumption of
mainstream theories of IR that international relations are regulated by the structure
of the international system. One of the salient features of Constructivism is that
it emphasizes the social dimension of international relations. Instead of focusing
on material factors such as military capacity and economic resources,
Constructivism examines how ideational factors such as identity, norms, language,
etc., influence the developments in international relations. However,
Constructivism is also not free from criticism. Constructivism has been the target
of its critics due to its bankruptcy in predicting the future course of international
relations. Constructivists neither set forth a pessimistic picture of international
relations depicted by Neorealists, nor does it draw a rosier picture as done by the
optimistic Neoliberals. Rather Constructivists are agnostic about the future of
international relations by submitting that the future can either be conflictual,
peaceful or in any other forms, depending on the interactions of actors. Hence,
the critics dub Constructivism as an empty vessel, which focuses only on the
social construction of international relations, and due to this reason, many IR
scholars consider Constructivism as an approach rather than a theory. Even so,
one cannot underestimate the role of Constructivism in enhancing the scope IR
by bringing ideational factors into its fold. Constructivism offers an alternative
explanation of some of the core themes in international relations such as the
meaning of international anarchy, and it also suggests the prospects for change.
7.7 REFERENCES
Adler, Emanuel (2013). ‘Constructivism in International Relations: Sources,
Contributions, and Debates’, in Handbook of International Relations, Second
Edition, London: Sage.
101
Approaches Barnett, Michael (2011). ‘Social Constructivism’, in The Globalization of World
Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, Fifth Edition, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Fierke, K.M. (2013). ‘Constructivism’, in International Relations Theories:
Discipline and Diversity, Third Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Flockhart, Trine (2012). ‘Constructivism and Foreign Policy’, in Foreign Policy:
Theories, Actors, Cases, Second Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hurd, Ian (2008). ‘Constructivism’, in The Oxford Handbook of International
Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jackson, Robert and Georg Sorensen (2010). Introduction to International
Relations: Theories and Approaches, Fourth Edition, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Onuf, Nicholas Greenwood (1989). World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in
Social Theory and International Relations, Columbia: University of South
Carolina Press.
Wendt, Alexander (1999). Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Zehfuss, Maja (2002). Constructivism in International Relations: The Politics
of Reality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

EXERCISES
1) Your answer should highlight following points
Argues that international relations are a social construction
States, alliances, and international institutions are the products of human
interaction
Is a three-layered understanding of international relations involving
metaphysics, social theory, and IR theory
1) Your answer should highlight following points
Social construction of reality in international relations
The influence of ideational factors
The relationship between the agents and structure
The meaning and nature of international anarchy
1) Your answer should highlight following
Modernist constructivism
Rule oriented constructivism
Radical constructivism and
Critical constructivism.
102

Block-2 Ir Approaches

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Block-2 Ir Approaches

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Block-2 Ir Approaches

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evolution of International

System (Up to the World

i) States are the Primary Actors in the International System

ii) IR is Anarchic in Character

iii) Control over Material Resources is Fundamental to World Politics

ii) With no supranational authority to impose order, international system,

v) According to Realism, international system is given shape and stability by

4.3 CLASSICAL REALISM

Twentieth-century ‘Classical’ Realism is generally dated back to 1939 and the

C) A rational statecraft serves national interest: Realism as a School puts a

D) Serving national interest is political morality: The key guide to statecraft

In the end, the organizing principle of Realism is the anarchic international

Waltz said that theories of international politics could be developed at ‘three

What are the implications of international anarchy? Neorealists argue that

Waltz’s Theory of International Politics proved to be influential generating new

4.5 CRITICISM OF REALISM

Similarly, Realism’s assumption of IR as anarchic negates the possibility that

4.6 LET US SUM UP

5.2 THE CONCEPT OF SYSTEM

A system can be defined as ‘an interconnected set of elements that is coherently

The GST was developed as a discipline to formulate general principles of Systems

5.3 SYSTEMS APPROACH TO INTERNATIONAL

5.3.1 Systems Approach of Morton Kaplan

5.3.2 Systems Approach of Kenneth Waltz

A) The Composition of the International System: According to Waltz, the

C) Autonomy of the International System: One of the major contributions

Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer,

5.3.3 Systems Approach of Keohane and Nye

Keohane and Nye developed Neoliberalism as a systemic theory, which explains

Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer,

5.3.4 Systems Approach of Alexander Wendt

A) The Composition of the International System: Like Neorealism and

B) Ideational Factors as the Regulating and Constitutive Force: As far as

C) The Consequence of Anarchy: Wendt agrees with Neorealism and

5.3.5 Systems Approach of Immanuel Wallerstein

According to Immanuel Wallerstein, the present or the modern world-system is

A) The Composition of the Modern World-System: According to Wallerstein

The second component of the modern world-system is the nation-state. The

The third component of the modern world-system is social classes. In a

B) Nature of the Modern World-System: According to Wallerstein, the

C) Regulating Force in the Modern World-System: The regulating force in

Check Your Progress Exercise 4

5.4 LET US SUM UP

5.6 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

6.2.1 Moderate Version of Dependency Theory

Prebisch challenged the theory of comparative advantage and the liberal

6.2.2 Radical Dependency Theory

6.2.3 World Systems Theory

Wallerstein introduces the ‘semi-periphery’ as a third category between the

Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer,

6.3 MAJOR CONCEPTS IN DEPENDENCY

6.3.2 Core, Periphery, Semi-Periphery, and Enclave Economy

Dependency theorists define ‘enclave economy’ as a territory within the periphery,

6.3.3 Dependency Theory as a Critic of Liberal Theories

6.3.4 Critique of Modernization Theory

According to Rostow, all countries have to undergo four stages of economic

Dependency theorists hold that modernization theory is ethnocentric and ignores

6.3.6 Neoliberal Globalization Entrenching the Dependency