POSC 2200 – The State, Decision Making and Foreign Policy Russell Alan Williams Department of Political Science

Unit Three: The State, Decision Making and Foreign Policy “Thinking Theoretically – State Power & the Decline of the state” Required Reading: Mingst, Chapter 5 Mingst, Chapter 5 Krasner, Sovereignty, Mingst and Snyder, pp Krasner, Sovereignty, Mingst and Snyder, pp Outline: 1. Introduction 2. Thinking Theoretically – Four views of the state 3. Bases of State Power 4. The Decline of the State?

1) Introduction: Focus on different views of state Focus on different views of state How they see the nature of: How they see the nature of: State Power State Power The Decline of the State The Decline of the State Foreign Policy Decesionmaking Foreign Policy Decesionmaking Then, focus on Foreign Policy Then, focus on Foreign Policy

2) Thinking Theoretically – Four Views of the State: Each theory offers a different view of the state – has implications for thinking about modern states 1) Liberal view: States seen as an institution – “pluralist arena” States seen as an institution – “pluralist arena” States have sovereignty, not autonomy States have sovereignty, not autonomy State in decline (?) State in decline (?) 2) Realist View: “Statist” – State is seen as an actor in its own right – “state centric” “Statist” – State is seen as an actor in its own right – “state centric” Predetermined “national interest” Predetermined “national interest” Constrained only by anarchy and the distribution of power Constrained only by anarchy and the distribution of power

3) Radical view: State is an agent influenced by dominant class/capitalism State is an agent influenced by dominant class/capitalism There is no “national interest” per se (in realist terms) There is no “national interest” per se (in realist terms) Sovereignty is meaningless – state is subject to the whims of capitalism Sovereignty is meaningless – state is subject to the whims of capitalism 4) Constructivist view: National interests and identities are socially constructed National interests and identities are socially constructed Evolve and change over time Evolve and change over time Shaped by international norms Shaped by international norms State seems to be a “pluralist arena” as liberals suggest, but... State seems to be a “pluralist arena” as liberals suggest, but...

These views play out against understandings of: State power State power The future of the state The future of the state Foreign Policy making Foreign Policy making

3) Basis of State Power: What is “Power”? Ability to influence others; and, Ability to influence others; and, To produce outcomes that would not have otherwise occurred To produce outcomes that would not have otherwise occurred States assumed to have power in relation to each other and in relation to actors inside state States assumed to have power in relation to each other and in relation to actors inside state Realist notions of state emphasize power, other views critical of some of the assumptions Realist notions of state emphasize power, other views critical of some of the assumptions

States have “power potential”: May not always be able to translate this into actual power - Latent May not always be able to translate this into actual power - Latent Comes from “natural”, “tangible” and “intangible” resources Comes from “natural”, “tangible” and “intangible” resources 1) “Natural” sources of power: a) Geographic size (?), or maybe geographic position (?) b) Natural resources May be determined by geographic size....

c) Population – “automatic power potential” However, even having all three of these does not directly translate into power – resources must be used and organized 2) “Tangible” sources of power: a) Industrial Development Enables military and technological capabilities Enables military and technological capabilities Natural factors less important (E.g. Britain) Natural factors less important (E.g. Britain) However states without natural resources are vulnerable over long term However states without natural resources are vulnerable over long term b) Military capabilities(?)

3) “Intangible” sources of power: More consistent with other approaches - “Liberalism” and “Constructivism” More consistent with other approaches - “Liberalism” and “Constructivism” a) National image - Does self image promote the use of natural resources for international power? E.g. Canada b) Public Support - High levels of internal support necessary to exercise of power E.g. US during Vietnam War c) Leadership - Well led, bold states better at translating resources into power E.g. Israel (well led) Iraq (poorly led) Iraq (poorly led)

d) Role of ideas? Constructivism? E.g. Ideological “hegemony” of western liberalism makes some exercises of state power appropriate and some not E.g. Ideological “hegemony” of western liberalism makes some exercises of state power appropriate and some not

4) The Decline of the State: Modern states face many challenges... A) Decline of “sovereignty” norm.... B) “Globalization” Economic Economic Reduces state control of economic policy (The financial crisis) Reduces state control of economic policy (The financial crisis) Increases risk of Transnational Crime Increases risk of Transnational Crime E.g. The Madoff Scandal (2008) – $26bn (US) lost E.g. The Madoff Scandal (2008) – $26bn (US) lost Decline of sovereignty in practice Decline of sovereignty in practice Cultural Cultural Erodes intangible sources of power Erodes intangible sources of power

C) “Transnational Movements”: Groups of people from different states who share religious, ideological, or policy beliefs and work together to change status quo Groups of people from different states who share religious, ideological, or policy beliefs and work together to change status quo E.g. “Non Governmental Organizations” E.g. “Non Governmental Organizations” Challenge role of state as representative of citizens in international politics Challenge role of state as representative of citizens in international politics E.g. Anti-Globalization movement E.g. Anti-Globalization movement E.g. “Islamic Fundamentalism”: E.g. “Islamic Fundamentalism”: Believers within Islam who oppose secular states and seek to enforce conformity with a stricter interpretation of Islam Believers within Islam who oppose secular states and seek to enforce conformity with a stricter interpretation of Islam

Challenge existing governments and relations amongst states Challenge existing governments and relations amongst states Challenge existing “statist” foreign policy Challenge existing “statist” foreign policy E.g. Iranian Revolution and hostages E.g. Iranian Revolution and hostages Challenge monopoly of force held by states Challenge monopoly of force held by states E.g. Terrorism E.g. Terrorism

D) “Ethnonational Movements” E) “Supranationalism”: Voluntary transfer of state power to supranational institutions Voluntary transfer of state power to supranational institutions E.g. The EU E.g. The EU Result: A bleak future for the state?

Stephen Krasner – “Sovereignty” Sovereign state not dead, or even in decline (?) Remains dominant actor in IR Remains dominant actor in IR = Realist argument? Claims: 1. Sovereignty was never “autonomy” - Not that much has changed 2. Support for intn’l rights over sovereignty is not new Globalization does not equal less state control; it means different kinds of control State activity as % of economy has grown State activity as % of economy has grown 4. NGO’s influence is limited 5. EU “Supranationalism” is unique Most importantly: States and nations still want it!!!!

5) For Next Time... Unit Three: The State, Decision Making and Foreign Policy “Foreign Policy” Required Reading: Mingst, Chapter 5 Mingst, Chapter 5 Krasner, Sovereignty, Mingst and Snyder, pp Krasner, Sovereignty, Mingst and Snyder, pp