Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-21T10:12:39.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic structure and international security: the limits of the liberal Case

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Barry Buzan
Barry Buzan
Affiliation:
Senior Lecturer in International Studies at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England.
Get access

Abstract

The theory that a liberal international economic structure is associated positively, and a mercantilist structure negatively, with international security is widespread. But the case in favor of liberalism, and the case against mercantilism, are both one-sided, and the whole attempt to link economic structure to international security anyway overestimates the influence that economic structure has on the use of force. Political and military factors provide explanations more convincing than economic ones for the propensity of states to resort to, or refrain from, the use of force. Liberal and mercantilist structures each have both positive and negative impacts on the use of force, but these impacts become important only when they are complemented by noneconomic factors governing the use of force. Hence security grounds cannot be used convincingly either as a reason for maintaining the current liberal system or as a reason for opposing a shift toward a more mercantilist structure of international economic relations.

Type
Articles
Information
International Organization , Volume 38 , Issue 4 , Autumn 1984 , pp. 597 - 624
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Some writers, for example, Ashley, Richard K., The Political Economy of War and Peace (London: Pinter, 1980), pp. 269–86Google Scholar, and Immanuel Wallerstein, “The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 16, 4 (1974), pp. 387–415Google Scholar, would take the view that this is too narrow a conception of economic structure: that it represents at best a substructure within a larger framework. Of other theories about the relationship between economic structure and the use offeree, Marxism-Leninism is an obvious example. For a summary and critique of the Marxist view, see Gilpin, Robert, War and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), pp. 75–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2. The extreme liberal position has already been adequately dismissed, for example, in Robbins, Lord, Money, Trade and International Relations (London: Macmillan, 1971), chaps. 9 and 11CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3. On the intellectual history of liberal thinking, and its connection to free trade, see Hinsley, F. H., Power and the Pursuit of Peace (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), chaps. 5 and 6Google Scholar. On the history of free trade up to the 1930s, see McCord, Norman, ed., Free Trade: Theory and Practice from Adam Smith to Keynes (Newton Abbot: David & Charles, 1970)Google Scholar.

4. Gardner, Richard N., Sterling-Dollar Diplomacy: The Origins and Prospects of Our International Economic Order (New York: Columbia University Press, 1980), pp. 7–9Google Scholar. See also pp. 101–12, 382–84.

5. For a summary of this development, see Carr, E. H., Nationalism and after (1945Google Scholar; rpt. London: Macmillan, 1968, pp. 1–33.

6. Waltz, Kenneth, “The Myth of Interdependence,” in Kindleberger, Charles, ed., The International Corporation (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1970), pp. 205–6Google Scholar.

7. See John Gallagher and Ronald Robinson, “The Imperialism of Free Trade,” and MacDonagh, Oliver, “The Anti-Imperialism of Free Trade,” both in Shaw, A. G. L., ed., Great Britain and the Colonies 1815–1865 (London: Methuen, 1970), chaps. 7 and 8Google Scholar; and Platt, D. C. M., “The Imperialism of Free Trade: Some Reservations,” Economic History Review 21, 2 (1968), pp. 296–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8. Lenin, V. I., Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916)Google Scholar. For a less ideological discussion of the role of “environmental supply” in international relations, see Rosecrance, Richard, International Relations: Peace or War? (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973), chap. 6Google Scholar.

9. See Skidelsky, Robert, “Retreat from Leadership: The Evolution of British Economic Foreign Policy, 1870–1939,” in Rowland, Benjamin, ed., Balance of Power or Hegemony: The Interwar Monetary System (New York: New York University Press, 1976), pp. 147–92Google Scholar, and Krasner, Stephen D., “State Power and the Structure of International Trade,” World Politics 28, 3 (1976), pp. 317–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10. Waltz, , “Myth of Interdependence,” pp. 205–20Google Scholar.

11. Knorr, Klaus, Power and Wealth (London: Macmillan, 1973), p. 196CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “On the International Uses of Military Force in the Contemporary World,” Orbis 21, 1 (1977), pp. 7–9, 16Google Scholar; Keohane, Robert and Nye, Joseph, Power and Interdependence (Boston: Little, Brown, 1977), p. 28Google Scholar; Tucker, Robert W., The Inequality of Nations (London: Robertson, 1977), pp. 174–75Google Scholar; Art, Robert J., “To What Ends Military Power? International Security 4, 4 (1980), pp. 31–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Hanrieder, Wolfram, “Dissolving International Politics: Reflections on the Nation-State,” American Political Science Review 72, 4 (1978), pp. 1279–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12. See, for example, Keohane, and Nye, , Power and Interdependence, pp. 28–29Google Scholar; Tucker, , Inequality of Nations, pp. 174–75Google Scholar; and Gilpin, Robert, U.S. Power and the Multinational Corporation (London: Macmillan, 1976), p. 227Google Scholar.

13. Morse, Edward L., “Interdependence in World Affairs,” in Rosenau, J. N., Thompson, K. W., and Boyd, G., eds., World Politics (New York: Free Press, 1976), p. 676Google Scholar; Knorr, , Power and Wealth, p. 9Google Scholar; Murdock, C. A., “Economic Factors as Objects of Security,” in Knorr, Klaus and Trager, Frank, eds., Economic Issues and National Security (Lawrence: Regents Press of Kansas, 1977), pp. 70–72Google Scholar; and Hanrieder, , “Dissolving International Politics,” pp. 1279–80Google Scholar.

14. For discussion, see Gilpin, War and Change, chap. 4.

15. Art, , “To What Ends,” p. 5Google Scholar. Thomas Schelling and Robert Osgood have also made extensive use of a very similar distinction. See Schelling, , Arms and Influence (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966), chap. 1Google Scholar, and Osgood, and Tucker, Robert W., Force, Order and Justice (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1967), pt. I, chaps. 1 and 3Google Scholar.

16. Greece and Turkey are notable exceptions to this generalization.

17. For the disutility view, see Millis, Walter, “The Uselessness of Military Power,” in Coplin, William and Kegley, Charles Jr, eds., A Multi-Method Introduction to International Politics (Chicago: Markham, 1971), pp. 114–27Google Scholar. Public doubts about the utility offeree arose both from the paralysis of deterrence and from America's debacle in Vietnam. They stimulated a host of rebuttals, most of which focused on the continued utility of “peaceful” uses of force despite increased restraints on its “physical” use. See Art, , “To What Ends,” pp. 27–29Google Scholar; Howard, Michael, “Military Power and International Order,” International Affairs 40, 3 (1964), p. 405CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Osgood, and Tucker, , Force. Order and Justice, p. 179Google Scholar; Kolodziej, Edward A. and Harkavy, Robert, “Developing States and the International Security System,” Journal of International Affairs 34, 1 (1980), p. 59Google Scholar; Martin, Laurence, “The Changed Role of Military Power,” International Affairs special issue (11 1970), p. 107Google Scholar. For a useful overview of the debate, see Knorr, “On the International Uses,” pp. 5–27Google Scholar.

18. On this theme see Martin, , “Changed Role,” pp. 101–6Google Scholar; Howard, , “Military Power,” pp. 397–408Google Scholar; Bull, Hedley, The Anarchical Society (London: Macmillan, 1977), pp. 189–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Buzan, Barry, People, States and Fear: The National Security Problem in International Relations (Brighton: Harvester, 1983), chap. 6Google Scholar.

19. Keohane, and Nye, , Power and Interdependence, pp. 28–29Google Scholar; Knorr, , Power and Wealth, respectively, p. 196, and pp. 7–9, 13–15, 18–19Google Scholar; and Kolodziej, and Harkavy, , “Developing States,” pp. 59–87Google Scholar.

20. Buzan, People, States and Fear, chap. 4. For the bipolar case, see Waltz, Kenneth, Theory of International Politics (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1979), chap. 8Google Scholar.

21. For example, Art, , “To What Ends,” pp. 29–30Google Scholar; Schultze, Charles L., “The Economic Content of National Security Policy,” Foreign Affairs 51, 3 (1973), pp. 529–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hirsch, Fred and Doyle, Michael, “Politicization in the World Economy: Necessary Conditions for an International Economic Order,” in Hirsch, , Doyle, , and Morse, Edward L., Alternatives to Monetary Disorder (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1977), pp. 25–34Google Scholar; Gilpin, , War and Change, pp. 253–55Google Scholar; and Krause, L. B. and Nye, J. S., “Reflections on the Economics and Politics of International Economic Organizations,” in Bergsten, C. F. and Krause, , eds., World Politics and International Economics (Washington, D.C.: Brookings, 1975), pp. 324–25Google Scholar.

22. Gilpin, , U.S. Power, pp. 234–35Google Scholar.

23. Kindleberger, Charles P., The World in Depression 1929–1939 (London: Allen Lane, 1973), pp. 26, 292Google Scholar.

24. Spero, Joan E., The Politics of International Economic Relations (London: Allen & Unwin, 1977), p. 65Google Scholar. See also Gilpin, Robert, “Economic Interdependence and National Security in Historical Perspective,” in Knorr, and Trager, , Economic Issues, p. 55Google Scholar; Krause, and Nye, , “Reflections,” p. 324Google Scholar; Blake, David H. and Walters, Robert S., The Politics of Global Economic Relations (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1976), pp. 11–12Google Scholar; Hirsch, and Doyle, , “Politicization,” p. 15Google Scholar.

25. For example, Blake, and Walters, , Politics of Global Economic Relations, p. 26Google Scholar; Evans, Douglas, The Politics of Trade: The Evolution of the Superbloc (London: Macmillan, 1974), pp. 15–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schultze, , “Economic Content,” pp. 538–39Google Scholar.

26. For one left-of-center scenario, see Kaldor, Mary, The Disintegrating West (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1978)Google Scholar.

27. Buzan, People, States and Fear, chap. 6.

28. Calleo, David, “The Decline and Rebuilding of an International Economic System,” in Calleo, et al. , Money and the Coming World Order (New York: New York University Press, 1976), pp. 51–62Google Scholar, and “The Historiography of the Interwar Period: Reconsiderations,” in Rowland, Balance of Power, pp. 232–51, is perhaps the strongest proponent of bloc mercantilism. Hirsch, and Doyle, , “Politicization,” pp. 49–55Google Scholar, seem to lean in this direction, though they do not make their position explicit. Evans, Politics of Trade, sees such blocs as a coming trend but has mixed views about their merits, fearing that they will recreate the environment of the 1930s. Kindleberger, Charles, “Systems of International Economic Organization,” in Calleo, et al. , Money and the Coming World Order, pp. 28–30Google Scholar, thinks that a bloc system would not work.

29. The economic debate on this idea is suggestive but inconclusive. The original work by Viner, Jacob, The Customs Union Issue (New York: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1950)Google Scholar, argued that a customs union (for example, a regional bloc) might well compensate in internal efficiencies what it lost by imposing trade barriers between itself and the rest of the world. This would be so particularly if the global trading system already deviated substantially from free-trade behavior. Static analysis, however, does not cope well with this problem, and the existing literature has made little headway against the mass of nonstandard and dynamic variables that influence the outcome in any given case. See Robson, Peter, The Economics of International Integration (London: Allen & Unwin, 1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and El-Agraa, Am and Jones, A. J., Theory of Customs Unions (Oxford: Allan, 1981)Google Scholar. See also the fairly positive economic view of a bloc mercantilist projection in Interfutures: Facing the Future (Paris: OECD, 1979)Google Scholar.

30. Hobson, J. A., Imperialism: A Study (London: Nisbet, 1902), pp. 91, 99Google Scholar. Calleo, David and Rowland, Benjamin, America and the World Political Economy (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1973), chap. 10Google Scholar, argue for a similar approach.

31. Predominantly welfare motives in protectionism have roots going back at least as far as F. List in the 19th century, and they can also be found in the work of Polanyi, Keynes, and E. H. Carr (see Sylvan, David J., “The Newest Mercantilism,” International Organization 35, 2 [1981], pp. 381–82)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In the contemporary context, Krauss, Melvyn B., The New Protectionism: The Welfare State and International Trade (Oxford: Blackwell, 1979), esp. pp. xx–xxiiiGoogle Scholar, gives a detailed, but unsympathetic, account of welfare protectionism. Ruggie, John G., “International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order,” International Organization 36, 2 (1982), pp. 379–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar, gives a penetrating insight into the links between the post-1945 liberal system and the emergent welfare protectionism.

32. On the continuity of these normative elements, see Ruggie, , “International Regimes,” esp. pp. 393–415Google Scholar.

33. Buzan, People, States and Fear, chap. 5. See also Calleo and Rowland, America and the World, chaps. 9 and 10, and Galtung, Johan, “A Structural Theory of Imperialism,” Journal of Peace Research 8, 2 (1971), pp. 81–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34. On this theme, see Buzan, Barry, “Security Strategies for Dissociation,” in Ruggie, John, ed., The Antinomies of Interdependence: National Welfare and the International Division of Labor (New York: Columbia University Press, 1983), chap. 8Google Scholar.

35. Kindleberger, Charles P., “Dominance and Leadership in the International Economy,” International Studies Quarterly 25, 2–3 (1981), p. 247CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36. On the collective goods point, see Olson, Mancur, The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Social Rigidities (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982)Google Scholar; Olson, and Zeckhauser, R., “An Economic Theory of Alliances,” Review of Economics and Statistics 48, 3 (1966), pp. 266–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Russett, Bruce M. and Sullivan, John D., “Collective Goods and International Organization,” International Organization 25, 4 (1971), pp. 845–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Olson, , “Increasing the Incentives for International Cooperation,” International Organization 25,4 (1971), pp. 866–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37. Views in support of the necessity of a hegemonic leader can be found in Skidelsky, “Retreat from Leadership”; Kindleberger, , “Systems,” pp. 35–38Google Scholar, World in Depression, pp. 26–28,292–308, and “Dominance and Leadership,” pp. 242–53; Keohane, Robert O., “The Theory of Hegemonic Stability and Changes in International Economic Regimes, 1967–1977,” in Holsti, Ole, Siverson, R., and George, A. L., eds., Change in the International System (Boulder: Westview, 1980)Google Scholar; and Gilpin, U.S. Power. One of the few sources explicitly enthusiastic about collective leadership is Keohane, and Nye, , Power and Interdependence, pp. 229–35Google Scholar. Views against the practicality of collective leadership can be found in Kindleberger, , “Dominance and Leadership,” p. 253, “Systems,” pp. 35–37, and World in Depression, pp. 299–308Google Scholar; and Calleo, , “Decline and Rebuilding,” pp. 51–52Google Scholar. Ruggie, , “International Regimes,” argues with some enthusiasm for the potential of a rule-based system, and Cleveland, in , Calleo et al. , Money and the Coming World Order, and Hanrieder, “Dissolving International Politics,” lean in this direction, but more out of resignation than enthusiasmGoogle Scholar. Kindleberger, , “Systems,” pp. 37–38Google Scholar, rejects the rules system explicitly. Even Ruggie views the rules system primarily as an extension of a prior period of hegemonic leadership.

38. Gilpin, , U.S. Power, p. 259Google Scholar.

39. Calleo, , “Historiography of the Interwar,” pp. 252–60Google Scholar.

40. Kindleberger, , “Dominance and Leadership,” pp. 242–53Google Scholar, makes the distinction between leadership greed and free riders as the cause of entropy in a liberal system. For a detailed discussion of this question generally, see Gilpin, War and Change, chaps. 4 and 5. See also Buzan, , People, States and Fear, pp. 146–49Google Scholar. For a historical examination of the British decline from leadership, see Skidelsky, “Retreat from Leadership”.

41. Calleo, , “Decline and Rebuilding,” pp. 50–51, “Historiography of the Interwar,” p. 259Google Scholar, and “Inflation and American Power,” Foreign Affairs 59, 4 (1981), pp. 781–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bergsten, C. F., Keohane, Robert, and Nye, J. S., “International Politics and International Economics: A Framework for Analysis,” International Organization 29, 1 (1975), pp. 11–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42. Skidelsky, , “Retreat from Leadership,” pp. 154–68Google Scholar; Krasner, , “State Power,” p. 320Google Scholar; Sylvan, , “Newest Mercantilism,” pp. 376–78Google Scholar.

43. Olson, Rise and Decline, elevates the role of domestic structural rigidities to the status of a general perspective on macroeconomics. See also Keohane, “Theory of Hegemonic Stability”; Meltzer, R. I., “Contemporary Dimensions of International Trade Relations,” in Knorr, and Trager, , Economic Issues, p. 215Google Scholar.

44. OECD, Interfutures, pp. 377–78Google Scholar; Calleo, , “Inflation and American Power,”pp. 794–812Google Scholar.

45. Diebold, William Jr., “Adaptation to Structural Change,” International Affairs 54, 4 (1978), pp. 573–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jacques Pelkmans, “The Many Faces of National Economic Security,”; and Peeters, Theo, “National Economic Security and the Maintenance of the Welfare State,” in Frans, A.Geusau, M. Alting von and Pelkmans, , eds., National Economic Security: Perspectives, Threats and Policies (Tilburg, Netherlands: John F. Kennedy Institute, 1982), chaps. 1 and 3Google Scholar; OECD, Interfutures, pp. 122–86; Klaus Knorr, “Economic Interdependence and National Security,” C. A. Murdock, “Economic Factors as Objects of Security,” and Gilpin, “Economic Interdependence,” all in Knorr and Trager, Economic Issues. Many of these negative pressures are common to both the hegemon (see note 43) and other states within the liberal economic system. See alsoGoogle ScholarBuzan, , People, States and Fear, pp. 142–44Google Scholar.

46. Gilpin, , “Economic Interdependence,” pp. 34–35, 39–42Google Scholar; Calleo, , “Decline and Rebuilding,” pp. 44–45, 50–51, and “Historiography of the Interwar,” p. 259Google Scholar.

47. Morse, , “Interdependence,” pp. 670–81Google Scholar.

48. Skidelsky, , “Retreat from Leadership,” pp. 163–64Google Scholar.

49. Hirsch, and Doyle, , “Politicization,” p. 34Google Scholar; Evans, , Politics of Trade, p. viiiGoogle Scholar.