Cameron G. Thies' article, "Are Two Theories Better than One? A Constructivist Model of the Neorealist-Neoliberal Debate," uses the Survival Model to suggest that the Neoliberal school of thought has more external validity and is more internally coherent than Neorealism. That is not to say, however, that Neorealism is invalid, as the author emphasizes on the need for empirical testing to arrive at a true judgment. The Survival Model concentrates on logical consistency, and he cites Bueno de Mesquita and Morrow (1999) as proponents of the idea that logical consistency is the key to evaluating theories, in disagreement with Stephen Walt who lists it as the lowest criteria, behind degree of originality and empirical validity. Thies believes that it is possible and desirable to explain conflict and cooperation with the same theory, and this can be achieved if both Neorealism and Neoliberalism establish that process, structure and environment are parts of the same whole. Will his suggestion truly eliminate the debate, or create a new one? And if the two theories are consolidated, will the Survival Model remain valid?
The Survival Model is derived from McPhee's Survival Model, that "demonstrates how art artifacts survive and become part of culture while others are eliminated from the cultural canon." An art and culture Survival of the Species, if you will. It elaborates on how cultural artifacts are subject to a screening process, and it is this screening process that is central to its application to the Neorealist-Neoliberal debate.
Using the analogy that a screening process is like separating the wheat and the chaff, the perennial problem is finding just the right screen because as one removes to much chaff, wheat is removed as well. Likewise, when one tries to retain too much wheat, chaff is retained as well. Wheat here represents cooperation, and chaff represents conflict. Here we note that there is always a normative bias towards cooperation in both sides. Thies argues that Neorealism is a single-screening process, as it approximates Neorealist ideas like arguing that states are always preparing for conflict, and the billiard-ball model of state interaction. Neoliberalism, on the other hand, is a repetitive-screening process as found in traditional material that stands the test of time.
The Survival Model makes several assumptions in order to arrive at its predictions, but let us define the terms it used. A is the proportion of new cooperative interstate relationships initiated or renewed in each period, while B is the proportion of new competitive ones, and C is the proportion of conflictual ones. It is important to note that "cooperation" is when states adjust incompatible policies, "conflict" is when they make no attempt to do so, and "competition" is when they adjust policies but not necessarily make them compatible with others'. Furthermore, a is the probability that A relationships will survive, b is the probability that B relationships will survive, and so on for C. The model assumes that A
After a single screening as expounded in the article, the results are consistent with Neorealism: there is more chaff in the system. The majority of interactions that remain is conflictual and competitive. After a repetitive screening, however, the results resemble Neoliberal thought: we have more wheat, the system has more cooperative and competitive interactions. But as repetition continues, we lose more wheat--after a critical point, we lose cooperative and competitive relationships.
Neorealism and Neoliberalism are both rational-choice theories which believe that states are egoist and self-interested. Alexander Wendt implies that both of them are of the Lockean form of anarchy, although Neorealism's proponents believe it as Hobbesian, and Neorealist's proponents are leaning toward the Kantian. Their main differences lie in their view of international cooperation, absolute versus relative gains, and their favoring of either process or environment.
Thies believes, and explains through the Survival Model, that the Neoliberal approach is more able to reflect the world system as of today, for two reasons. First, that the nature of international interaction itself is repetitive and continuous. Second, that in today's world, cooperation, conflict, and competition are all present. Neoliberals cite the "democratic peace" as proof that international cooperation is ultimately possible, while the Survival Model suggests that after several screenings, conflictual relationships will inevitably arise. Huntington's "Reverse Wave" is a manifestation of this.
I believe that while the Neorealists and the Neoliberals have similarities, their differences in their basic assumptions will hinder them from being consolidated. They have the same ends but different means of getting there. Consolidation will require a compromise from both sides, and it will essentially create a new debate of whether or not the new version (a post-neorealist-neoliberalism perhaps) is better equipped to explain the international stage than its successors. And since the Survival Model is premised on their difference in the descriptive view of the world, the consolidation would invalidate the model. The arbitrariness of the data is also a problem since from the beginning it has a bias towards cooperation and leans either toward the Neorealist perspective or the Neoliberal perspective at any point. Furthermore, the model is inconclusive, since it is only a test of logical consistency. However, it does provide valuable insights on how Neoliberalist and Neorealist thought can be harnessed to further understand the subtleties of today's global political landscape.
No comments:
Post a Comment