c



 
 
 







Advance Theories of International

Relations Essay

  
  

 
  

 

  
 

  ! 

  
"

# 
"
$%

& '

 (' )*)

+,-,.--.,/
 u
 







 
 


  
  

 u      

    
   

  

 
      

      !" #

"$   $ % !"&'#






(
$ 




 
 

The traditional approach in international relations has been limited in two main IR
theories: Realism and Institutionalism. However, these two approaches have not developed a
complete and a comprehensive theory that explain the dynamics in the international scenario.
The International relations scenario responds to multicausal factors; however, the restrictions
concerning these two main theories leave some important points underestimated. States shape its
foreign policy depending in various causes which includes preferences, the same that could be
find in the very essence of the state: the societal actors, which become a preponderant factor that
shape the external behavior of the State. In this essay it would be identified the three core
assumptions develop by Andrew Moravcsik, we will further try to employ them to develop some
examples and in the conclusion the question about how can state preferences influence the
external behavior of states in an interdependent would be response.
V

  
  

Andrew Moravcsik contribution to IR is based in the central argument that ³the basic
liberal insight about the centrality of state-society relations to world politics can be restated in
terms of three positive assumptions, concerning, respectively, the nature of fundamental societal
actors, the state, and the international system´1, the importance of these three assumptions is that
the author considers them as ³appropriate foundations of any social theory of IR´2
V
 u      

³The fundamental actors in international politics are individuals and private groups, who
are on the average rational and risk-averse and who organize exchange and collective action to
promote differentiated interests under constraints imposed by material scarcity, conflicting
values, and variations in societal influence´3. By this point of view, the primordial actors are the

1
Moravcsik, Andrew. ³Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of International Politics´. Interational
Organization, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Autumn 1997), pg 515
2
Ibid. Pp. 516
3
Ibid. Pp. 516
individuals and private groups the same that tries to advance its interest, the very essence of the
world is base on different interest as a consequence of the scarcity of resources which provoke an
inevitable competition.³For liberals, the definition of the interests of societal actors is
theoretically central [since] scarcity and differentiation introduce an inevitable measure of
competition [within the system]. Where social incentives for exchange and collective action are
perceived to exist, individuals and groups exploit them: the greater the expected benefits, the
stronger the incentive to act. In pursuing these goals, individuals are on the average risk-averse;
that is, they strongly defend existing investments but remain more cautious about assuming cost
and risk in pursuit of new gains´4. The first assumptions basically understand the nature of
societal actors, and understand the circumstances where conflict is likely or cooperation is the
probable scenario. The importance of understand the societal actors has to do with the next
assumptions, since actors when pursuing its interest turn to the states to enhance in action.

    

   
V
³States (or other political institutions) represent some subset of domestic society, on the
basis of whose interests state officials define state preferences and act purposively in world
politics. In the liberal conception of domestic politics, the state is not an actor but a
representative institution constantly subject to capture and recapture, construction and
reconstruction by coalitions of social actors. Representative institutions and practices constitute
the critical µµtransmission belt¶¶ by which the preferences and social power of individuals and
groups are translated into state policy. Individuals turn to the state to achieve goals that private
behavior is unable to achieve efficiently. Government policy is therefore constrained by the
underlying identities, interests, and power of individuals and groups (inside and outside the state
apparatus) who constantly pressure the central decision makers to pursue policies consistent with
their preferences´5. It is clear that individuals turn into their states to accomplish with its goals;
their influence can shape dramatically the policy of the states because states seek for the
contentment of their society. However, it is also important to mention that some interest groups
have sometimes a lot more weight and are more represent because ³no government rest on

4
Moravcsik, Andrew. ³Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of International Politics´. Interational
Organization, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Autumn 1997), Pg 517
5
Ibid. Pp 518
universal or unbiased political representation; every government represents some individuals
more fully than others´6. Even though some groups are more privileged than others, the main
focus should be that when a state pays attentions to ³societal pressures transmitted by
representative institutions and practices [these pressures] alter state preferences´7. If the state
has important influential groups the preferences of the states in an external sphere change, since
this shift is a response to social demands that are extremely necessary for the stability of the
states, in this sense societal actors influence states to address their interest in a broader scenario.

  

 
      

³The configuration of interdependent state preferences determines state behavior. For

liberals, state behavior reflects varying patterns of state preferences. States require a µµpurpose,¶¶
a perceived underlying stake in the matter at hand, in order to provoke conflict, propose
cooperation, or take any other significant foreign policy action´8. The importance of the third
assumption is based on the starting point that states cannot pursue its own policy while ignoring
the other countries; ³instead, each state seeks to realize 
Vdistinctive preferences under varying
constraints imposed by the preferences of  V
 
 However, there is a possibility of action
because the ³structure of the international system constrains and enables states, making certain
policy options more attractive to them than others´10. If the states find for the policy a common
ground that lead to benefits to all, this become the desirable scenario, in which states need to aim
their policies and become an influential actor within the system; on the contrary, it is also
possible to find impossible a mutual benefit relation and instead perceived the advance in the
other state interest as a relation zero-sum.

      !" #

6
Moravcsik, Andrew. ³Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of International Politics´. Interational
Organization, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Autumn 1997), Pg 517
7
Ibid. Pp 519
8
Ibid. Pp. 520
9
Ibid. Pp. 520
10
Alons, Gerry C. "Predicting a State¶s Foreign Policy: State Preferences between Domestic and International
Constraints." „
V V 

3.3 (2007): 211-232.    VV  . EBSCO. Web. 9 Nov. 2010.
Pp. 219
 ³Since the 1970s, MNCs have been increasingly recognized as significant actors,
controlling resources far greater than those of many states´11. Nowadays MNC played a
significant role when dealing with policy making because they have important influence. In
Andrew Moravcsik perspective this would be a clear explanation on the assumption one and two,
since a societal actor (Multinational Corporation) with significant influence within the state, can
pressure the state to pursue some policies like promoting tariffs reductions such as NAFTA.
However, it also comes some constrains for MNCs from the states and international
Organizations, in this sense they try to regulate MNCs, and incentive this actors to promote
development. Since all countries were sharing this perception they create a ³mechanism to
regulate corporate behavior and to engage MNCs as positive contributors to global
governance´12. This mechanism is ³the global compact on Corporate Responsibility [which]
incorporates nine principles that participating companies agree to uphold. These include
adherence to international human rights law, rejection on child and forced labor, abolition of
discrimination in employment, and promotion of greater environmental responsibility´13.

"$   $ % !"&'#

³Nongovernmental organizations are both pieces of governance and key actors, playing a
number of roles. The growth of NGO networks since the 1980s has been a major factor in their
increasing involvement in governance at all levels, from global to local. The majority of
thousands of grassroots groups that exist in countries around the world are not part of formal
networks, but might have informal links to organizations, such as a large international human
rights and development NGOs like Human Rights Watch and CARE´14. Through
nongovernmental organizations grassroots groups have important and key roles when they
support some cause such as human rights or environmental protection, the main objective here is
to be essential pieces when decision making time comes up, and in this sense create a much
comprehensive policy that actually represents the interest of some particular group.

11
Karns, Margaret & Mingst Karen. International Organizations the Politics and Processes of Global Governance.
³Understanding Global Governance´. Pp 20
12
Ibid. Pp. 21
13
Ibid. Pp 440
14
Ibid. Pg. 18
 

Traditionally states external behavior has been explained through realism and
institutionalism. In this sense, important pieces have been left behind such as societal groups,
representation and state interest and interdependence. Each of these plays a main role when
shaping foreign policy and moreover each of them is interconnected between one to another.
Each of these actors coexists in ³mutual dependence (relation): peoples and governments
affected by what is happening elsewhere, by the actions of their counterparts in other
countries´15. Dependency is a liberal conception, since dependency reflects a process of
modernization, it is for this reason that ³liberals argue that modernization is a process involving
progress in most areas of life. The process of modernization enlarges the scope for cooperation
across international boundaries. Progress means a better life for at least the majority of
individuals´16.
However, before the process of modernization states have drawn an external behavior,
which properly responses to societal pressures and interest groups within its boundaries. Each of
these actors are the essential elements when shaping preferences the same that are going to be
accomplish by the states through different mechanisms. The mater within this process is that
even when the world is interdependent and some preferences are not the same to other countries,
there are some states that share the same preferences and would pursue some policies addressing
this issue in an international sphere.
In my point of view it is important to consider the relevance of liberal theory; however it
is a wide range of points that have to be reinforced and restructure. The main failure of any
international relation theory relies on the assumption that there is no other possibility or theory
which can be valid, in this sense preferences are another perspective that should be taken into
account, because as the author said ³yet it is not always appropriate to employ a mono-causal
theory´17 to explain the complexity of external behavior of states.



15
Jackson, Robert; Sorensen, Georg. Introduction to International Relations. Theories and Approaches. Third
edition, Oxford University Press: Great Britain, 2007. Pp 103
16
Jackson, Robert; Sorensen, Georg. Introduction to International Relations. Theories and Approaches. Third
edition, Oxford University Press: Great Britain, 2007. Pp 99
17
Ibid, pg 542
(
$ 
Alons, Gerry C. "Predicting a State¶s Foreign Policy: State Preferences between Domestic and
International Constraints." „
V  V  

3.3 (2007): 211-232.    V V
  . EBSCO. Web. 9 Nov. 2010.

Jackson, Robert; Sorensen, Georg. Introduction to International Relations. Theories and

Approaches. Third edition, Oxford University Press: Great Britain, 2007.

Karns, Margaret & Mingst Karen. International Organizations the Politics and Processes of
Global Governance. ³Understanding Global Governance´.

Moravcsik, Andrew. ³Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of International Politics´.

Interational Organization, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Autumn 1997)