21 terms

Marxism, Dependency Theory etc.

focused on the domestic economic structure of capitalist states
Marxism's concentration
on economic class, production, and property relations has sometimes been called "economic reductionism" or "histoircal materialism"
believed that politics is a function of economics and predicted that the greed of capitialists would drive important events in international relations
Marxists underestimated
the forces of nationalism, state power, and geopolitics
Difficult for Marxists to explain
the clashes between China and the Soviet Union in 1969, the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia in 1978, or the Sino-Vietnamese War of 1979
Dependency Theory
builds on Marxism, it predicted that the wealthy countries in the "center" of the global marketplace would control and hold back poorer countries on the "periphery"
According to dependency theorists
the global economic and political division between the First World (rich, liberal, capitalist countries and the Third World (developing countries), also known as the North-South divide, is the result of both historical imperialism and the nature of capital globalization
Dependency theory's explanatory success
accounting for the failure of many poor countries to benefit from global economic liberalization to the extent that orthodox liberal economic theory predicted
Dependency theory drew attention to
the curious and important phenomenon of the "dual economy"in developing countries, in which a small, wealthy, educated , urban economic elite interacted with and profited handsomely from globalization, while the vast majority of impoverished, largely rural farmers, and miners did not
Dependency theory has difficulty
explaining why, in the 1980s and 1990s, "peripheral" countries in East Asia, such as South Korea, Singapore, and Malaysia, grew more rapidly than "central" countries in North America and Europe
Neorealists and neoliberals
increased the simplicity and elegance of theory, but they did so at the cost of discarding much of the rich complexity of classical realism and liberalism
argued that realism and liberalism both fail to explain long-term change in world politics adequately
Constructivists example argument
neither realists nor liberals predicted the end of the Cold War, nor could they explain it satisfactorily after the fact.
emphasize the importance of ideas and culture in shaping both the reality and the discourse of international politics
Constructivists stress
the ultimate subjectivity of interests and their links to changing identities
Constructivists believe
that leaders and other people are motivated not only by material interests, but also by their sense of identity, morality, and what their society or culture considers appropriate
Constructivists agree
that the international system is anarchic, but they argue that there is a spectrum of anarchies ranging from benign, peaceful, even friendly ones to bitterly hostile competitive ones, the nature of anarchy at any given time depends upon prevailing norms, perceptions and beliefs
Constructivists draw
on different disciplines to examine the process by which leaders, peoples, and cultures alter their preferences, shape their identities and learn new behaviors
Constructivists ask
Why the change? What role did ideas play? Will the practice of war go the same way someday? What about the concept of the sovereign state?
is an apporach that rejects neorealism's or neoliberalism's search for scientific laws, instead it seeks contingent generalizations and often offers thick description as a form of explanation
provides both a useful critique and important supplement to realism and liberalism, it reminds us of what they often miss