Neoliberal institutionalism

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The neo-liberal institutionalism , or even simply neoliberalism , neo-institutionalism or institutionalism called ( English : (neoliberal) institutionalism , neoliberalism ), is a theory of international relations that the creation and functioning of international organizations explored.

Neoliberal institutionalism claims to be the only or only noteworthy theory of international institutionalism, but this is denied by supporters or connoisseurs of functionalism , the English school and the theory of cartel states . The interdependence theory and the regime theory , which emerged in the 1970s, can be regarded as parts or stages of development of neoliberal institutionalism .

Historical development

For the advocates of neoliberal institutionalism, the central question is: "Under what conditions does cooperation arise in a world of egoists without central authority ?"

Neoliberal institutionalism developed in the USA in the 1970s and 1980s as a new way of explaining patterns of cooperation in international politics . Its founders and for a long time the most important representatives were Robert O. Keohane , Joseph Nye and Stephen D. Krasner . -

According to the self-portrayal of this direction, research into the emergence and functioning of international organizations was primarily practically oriented until the 1980s. In the absence of a theoretical superstructure, Stephen Krasner would have published International Regimes in 1983 and Robert Keohane published After Hegemony in 1984 , thus stimulating a scientific debate about the nature of international organizations.

Critics, however, accuse these scientists of not having been that original at all, namely of having used the theory of international functionalism in the 1980s without being proven . The accusation of plagiarism was made particularly decidedly by the American political scientist Philippe C. Schmitter . In 2002 he found some “novelties” of international relations - among them particularly prominent Keohane and Krasner's “International Regime Analysis” - that they represented adoptions from neo-functionalism: “And when there was some theoretical core it often sounded quite familiar to me. [...] neo-functionalist thinking turned out to be very much alive, even if it was usually being re-branded as a different animal. "

Basic assumptions

  1. As actors in international politics are both the States and the social groups within states is important. Although the internal constitution and the constellation of interests within a state influence its foreign policy , at the same time the behavior of states in the international arena cannot be reduced solely to the influence of social groups.
  2. The various theories of neo-institutionalism are based on the assumptions of the theory of rational decision , which assumes that the actors rationally evaluate different options for action in the light of their interests in order to ultimately select the action that most suits their interests.
  3. The anarchy in the international system is increasingly contained by the interdependencies between the individual states and societies.
  4. The transnational interdependencies result in an increased interest in cooperation among the actors, which leads to the formation of international institutions . The institutions develop a momentum of their own through which they influence the behavior of the states in some cases even beyond their regulatory content.

The term used for cooperation is based on two assumptions:

  • Even if the actors pursue different goals, they behave rationally and purposefully
  • Cooperation promises profits for the actors, although these profits do not have to be of the same type or the same for each actor

Each actor helps the others to achieve their goals in the expectation of improving their own position as well. This creates a reciprocal change in politics, which ultimately makes all sides better off.

The central hypothesis of neo-institutionalism is therefore that international politics is shaped by the rules and norms that are anchored in international institutions. Accordingly, neo-institutionalism deals in particular with the questions under which circumstances international institutions come into being, how they affect the international and domestic politics of the participating states and how they must be constructed in order to be effective.

In contrast to the theory of neorealism , Keohane postulates that, despite the anarchic constitution of the international system , states can also cooperate outside of “ high politics ”. In contrast to the neorealist theory , states are not only interested in relative profits, but also in absolute profits, so that, according to this theory, interdependencies do not lead to instability, but can contribute to cooperation and stability.

Keohane clearly differentiates between conventions , regimes and organizations as different levels of integration in overarching systems. He describes conventions as informal rules that are not fixed, but still unfold their validity (for example: the red carpet convention ). Regimes are norms and values ​​that have become tangible in the form of contracts (for example: climate agreements) and thus represent “negotiated orders”. Organizations are “useful entities that are able to register and overcome activity and react to it” (Keohane).

These questions are dealt with with the help of various theoretical approaches, which start with their explanation on different levels: The conflict object theory derives the probability of institution formation from the type of the respective conflict object. Depending on how the conflicting parties evaluate the subject of the conflict, conflict management regulated by the formation of international institutions is easier or more difficult to achieve. In the case of value conflicts, a cooperative conflict management is very unlikely, in the case of conflicts of means - i.e. conflicts about the adequate means to achieve a common goal - an institutionally supported cooperative conflict management is very likely. In the case of conflicts of interest, a distinction is made between those about absolutely valued goods (the parties to the conflict want the same good , but there is not enough of it for everyone) and those about relatively valued goods (what is important for the conflicting parties is to have more than one good the other) differed. According to the conflict object theory, the former are more accessible to cooperative conflict management. The theory of interest constellations differentiates between different interest coalitions, in which the probability of institutional conflict management is made dependent on the respective situation of the actors involved. The distinction between the constellations of interests is either only made at the intergovernmental level (situation-structural approach) or the constellations of interests at the societal level are also taken into account (two-level approach) . With the help of game theory , interdependent decision-making situations can be presented in a formalized way (four-field scheme) , so that it becomes clear how the realization of the interests of each individual actor depends on how the other actors try to realize their interests.

The theory of institutional effects does not deal with education, but with the effects of international institutions. It assumes that the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of different institutions is explained by the design of the respective institution. The central question is whether the design of the institution is appropriate to the respective constellation of interests. Depending on the constellation of interests, different institutional designs are considered successful.

About the term "international institution"

Institutions are norm-oriented patterns of behavior that lead to an approximation of mutual behavioral expectations of the actors. The international regimes and organizations are particularly important here .

literature

  • Robert O. Keohane (Ed.): After Hegemony. Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy . Princeton NJ, 1984.
  • Robert O. Keohane (Ed.): International Institutions and State Power. Essays in International Relations Theory . San Francisco / London 1989, pp. 1-20.
  • Lisa L. Martin: Neoliberalism. In: T. Dunne et al.: International Relations Theories - Discipline and Diversity . Oxford University Press , Oxford 2007, ISBN 978-0-19-929833-4 , pp. 109-125.
  • Michael Zürn : Interests and Institutions in International Politics. Foundation and application of the situation-structural approach . Opladen 1992.
  • Bernhard Zangl: Interests on two levels - international regimes in agricultural trade, currency and whaling policy . Baden-Baden 1999.
  • Michael Zürn: Governing beyond the nation state . Frankfurt am Main 1998, pp. 166-246.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ See e.g. B. Günther Auth: Theories of International Relations compact. Munich 2008, p. 61.
  2. ↑ Lisa L. Martin: Neoliberalism. In: T. Dunne et al.: International Relations Theories - Discipline and Diversity. Oxford University Press , Oxford 2007, pp. 110f.
  3. ^ Philippe C. Schmitter: Neo-Neo-Functionalism: Deja vu, all over again? European University Institute, 2002, p. 1. (online at: faculty.utep.edu )
  4. ↑ Andrea K. Riemer: Theories of international relations and new methodological approaches . Frankfurt am Main 2006.