Moravcsik's Political Power (Kelsey Hunter, Week 3 Substantive)

One thing that struck me in Moravcsik's argument for Liberalism was his comparison to Realism that in Liberal IR theory, political power is exercised through the "nature and relative intensity" of actor preferences (page 523). Moravcsik believes it is preferences not the capabilities to exert power that matter the most in negotiations and decision making on the part of the state. So in essence it is not an instance of a state exerting power for the sole reason that it has a strong military, but instead a state who has a strong military deciding that it is or is not willing to use that capability based on its preferences regarding foreign policy. In this sense it seems that power politics are more calculated than just using power for the sake of doing so. So, to go along with a previous post on nuclear power- if we take the example of North Korea, a state that has a large military and a state which at one point was identified as part of the "Axis of Evil"- North Korea has both the capacity and a motivation to create a conflict with the U.S. However, if we use the Moravcsik's Liberal theory, we see that North Korea won't make its decision based on its capabilities, but will make its decision based on its preferences (does it want to go to war, how would war affect the North Korean citizens, would it rather have a peaceful or at least stable relationship with its neighbors than risk being crushed by the U.S., is N. Korea willing to risk a U.S. nuclear response?) These preferences are what determine foreign policy, and not the sheer power determinations of the Realist theory.