"The new liberal institutionalists basically argue that even if realists are correct in believing that anarchy constrains the willingness of states to cooperate, states nevertheless can work together and can do so especially with the assistance of international institutions...new liberal institutionalism fails to address a major constraint on the willingness of states to cooperate which is generated by international anarchy" (Grieco 486-487)
Grieco's paper focuses on tearing apart the institutionalists dream of global cooperation. He cites the states fear of losing security, of cheating their way through treaties, and of others gaining more than they do. At the same time, he talks of how world anarchy fostering "competition and conflict." Grieco acknowledges that at the current state of affairs, there is cheating and paranoia, yet he shuts down institutionalism for the possiblility that it could cause essentially cheating and paranoia. Grieco never answers the looming question of what do we have to lose by attempting cooperation? It seems that with cooperation, the worse thing that could happen is exactly what would be going on without cooperation. With an attempt at cooperation, there is the possibility of some sort of checks and balances. International organizations like the United Nations at least give some creditablility to treaties and agreements. With alliances and cooperation, nations will be less likely to cheat. The incentive is to keep benefitting from their partnerships. It would seem that those who aren't in alliances would be most likely to go back on their word.
Grieco claims instutionalism cannot possiblity be successful, because the interests of states has and will always be survivalism. This level of analysis is far too simplistic in the modern area. Of course every state has a basic need to fill of security, but once that need has been filled, they develop other interests, such as profit or quality of life for their citizens. The world's most powerful countries even take risks on their security in order to make profits. For example, if the United States was only concerned with security, they wouldn't outsource jobs or production out of fear in putting their economy in the hands of foreigners. Developed countries have many more interests that just security and survivalism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Unfortunately, cooperation often has costs that amount to more than simply the state of affairs that would exist in the absence of cooperation. Do you think the collective action problem is a valid support for the realists' pessimism?
Though the collective action problem is a valid critique, i do not agree with the realist idea that military power is necessarily the most important to states anymore but rather that economic power is more important, therefore cooperation to some degree is essential.
Post a Comment