Theories of International Relations are constructed to help make sense of how power is divided amongst international actors. Three prominent theories: Realism, Liberalism, and Neo-Marxism, interpret international phenomena differently based on their assumptions about structures of global power. Economic interdependence is seen by each theory to impact who has power and how that power is maintained. These theories diverge in interpreting how economic interdependence impacts forms of conflict. These pieces do not interpret which theory is correct but work to emphasize the contextual foundations and analytical framework for how each theory perceives the entanglement of economic interdependence and conflict

Arkin, Sam M

English

Gettysburg College

Glatfelter Gazette Political Science 10-2022 Economic Interdependence and Conflict: An International Relations Theory Analysis Sam M. Arkin Gettysburg College, arkisa01@gettysburg.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/gazette  Part of the International Economics Commons, and the International Relations Commons Share feedback about the accessibility of this item. Recommended Citation Arkin, Sam M., "Economic Interdependence and Conflict: An International Relations Theory Analysis" (2022). Glatfelter Gazette. 3. https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/gazette/3 This open access article is brought to you by The Cupola: Scholarship at Gettysburg College. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of The Cupola. For more information, please contact cupola@gettysburg.edu. Economic Interdependence and Conflict: An International Relations Theory Analysis Abstract Theories of International Relations are constructed to help make sense of how power is divided amongst international actors. Three prominent theories: Realism, Liberalism, and Neo-Marxism, interpret international phenomena differently based on their assumptions about structures of global power. Economic interdependence is seen by each theory to impact who has power and how that power is maintained. These theories diverge in interpreting how economic interdependence impacts forms of conflict. These pieces do not interpret which theory is correct but work to emphasize the contextual foundations and analytical framework for how each theory perceives the entanglement of economic interdependence and conflict. Keywords Economic Interdependence, Conflict, Realism, Liberalism, Neo-Marxism Disciplines International Economics | International Relations | Political Science Comments Journal Subfield: International Relations Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. This article is available at The Cupola: Scholarship at Gettysburg College: https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/gazette/3 Current-Event Analysis | November 2022______________________________________________________________________________International RelationsEconomic Interdependence and Conflict, AnInternational Relations Theory AnalysisbySam Arkin ‘23Political Science and Environmental Studies Major & Art History MinorGettysburg CollegeEconomic Interdependence and Conflict, An International Relations Theory AnalysisBy Sam ArkinIntroThe theories of international relations are employed to help make sense of and organize theworld according to various characteristics such as who has power and how it is utilized. Theylargely originate out of historical circumstances and seek to describe, explain, and analyzereal-world experiences. Contemporary international affairs embraces globalization, which is atheory that is largely defined as the increasing interconnectivity of people, economies, andcultures. Economic interdependence, which refers to the relationship between variouseconomically connected nations where they grow dependent on one another, is a tool to measurethe benefits and costs of globalization. The theories of international relations view economicinterdependence and its impact on global politics differently. A correlation often drawn is thatbetween whether increasing economic interdependence increases or decreases the possibility ofarmed conflict between nations. As the theories differ in assumptions and critiques of each other,realism, liberalism, and Neo-Marxism offer the most compelling arguments for the variousimplications of the connection between economic interdependence and conflict.1RealismRealist theory, the oldest theory in international relations, relies on several key tenets. Some ofthese assume that the most important actor is the state, the international system is anarchic innature, and states are rational actors. These tenets provide a foundation for understanding themost important aspect of realist theory: power. Realism views international relations as azero-sum game, with states vying with each other in attempts to secure and expand beyond theircurrent power.The offensive realist denomination provides a unique lens through which to view the connectionbetween economic interdependence and conflict because of its perspectives on the way statesgain power. This version of realist theory interprets that states will do what they can to gainpower through any opportunities available, small or large. Nations will also always seek morepower to obtain economic independence. Economic interdependence, with power viewed as azero-sum game, is thought to make any particular nation weaker when it becomes dependent onanother. States thus want to acquire “as much power compared to other states as possible” tosecure their power and obtain greater independence. Offensive realism with its uniqueperspective on how states gain power, proclaims that increasing economic interdependencecreates more conflict.The uncertainty of economic interdependence, within offensive realism, is viewed as a causalmechanism of conflict. Increasing domestic security to reduce uncertainty is a key assertion ofrealist theory. This uncertainty is specifically the state's lack of knowledge and control over thesecurity of various trade relations between nations. Nations become sensitive and vulnerablebecause “valuable export markets and foreign investments might be reduced by adversaries benton hurting their relative power positions.” The uncertainty of continued trade can become asecurity issue in which a nation is vulnerable. A nation’s power is at risk with this vulnerabilityand uncertainty. Since offensive realism maintains that nations constantly seek out even the mostminimal opportunities to gain power, the instances of insecurity also represent possibilities togain security, however small or large. A confrontation of security between nations, with power asa zero-sum gain, can only end with a winner and a loser. This relationship built from tradeuncertainty, and the subsequent desire for security, empowers nations to continuously act in anoffensive manner in order to gain power out of fear of losing more. Offensive realism’s logiccreates a relationship whereby the entanglements of economic interdependence leads to anincrease in possibility of conflict because of the uncertainty and vulnerabilities exhibited.The dependency of nations on one another within an economically interdependent system is alsoseen to be a driver of the increased possibility of conflict, according to offensive realism.Economic interdependence as a function makes nations dependent on one another. In anoffensive realist dictum, “when states find themselves in situations of dependence, they are2forced to grab opportunities to reduce their vulnerability through war, at least when the chance todo so arises at low cost.” This is a calculation of power that can be gained compared against thelosses that can be sustained. Offensive realism maintains that this balance of power is whatdrives conflict. Gaining power through this careful calculation of security is why offensiverealism is unique in analyzing economic interdependence. As a nation lacks “a position ofrelative independence” subsequent “dependence creates vulnerability or a lack of power.”Interdependencies create opportunities for nations to seize strategic gains in relative power. Asconnectivity breeds uncertainty, and uncertainty initiates a desire for security, all opportunitiesfor security are viable, indicating the smallest economic connection between nations can beviewed as an opportunity for gaining security and power. zero-sum views of power are thefoundation for this perspective, which sees only one nation as able to win and one nation toequally lose. As dependency reduces a nation's ability to be independent, it reduces its power andacts as a catalyst for the opportunities to gain power out of the desire to be secure within aninsecure relation of trade. Both dependency and uncertainty work in tandem with a zero-sumview of power to help explain the offensive realist disdain for economic interdependence. Theresult is that these factors enlarge the overall possibility for the eruption of conflict.3LiberalismThe liberal theory of international relations evolved as a critique to realism’s focus on greatpower politics. While realist theories agree that the international system is anarchic, liberalismvalues economic interdependence arguing that it mitigates violence and conflict. Throughcorporations, organizations, and law, nations build bonds that liberalism sees as generating trust,whereas realism sees such interactions as producing uncertainty and dependency. Theseinteractions range from bilateral treaties, multi- lateral treaties, non- governmental organizations(NGO), intergovernmental organizations, and more. These forms of connectivity work to ensurepeace by building upon liberalism's belief in cooperation. Significantly, liberalism rejects therealist assumption of zero-sum games within the international system. This divergence becomescritical in understanding how liberalism views the benefits of economic interdependence.Disagreeing with certain realist assumptions, liberalism posits that economic interdependencereduces conflict because it builds cooperation and deters violence.Liberalism “attempts to make specific the causal mechanisms behind the inclination ofeconomically liberal states to prefer peace to conflict.” This theory holds that trade among statesis mutually beneficial. Power is perceived to be gained by all parties involved in trade, rejecting0 sum trade theory. Trade and market relations become a driver of peace, where competitionproduces not conflict, but cooperation. Liberalism asserts that each state, through trade andcompetition, creates better dialogues of communication that minimize rather than maximizeuncertainty. Therefore, the creation of “more diversified and complex … existing transnationalcommercial ties and production structures” serves to reinforce positive communication. Withpower not visualized as a zero-sum game, these interactions are not seen as an affront to thepower of another nation, meaning that the power of nations involved can grow in relation to oneanother, without one losing. The opportunity to create more power for all parties becomesdirected by the increase of economically interdependent systems.Liberal theory suggests that because during times of conflict parties risk losing their economicbenefits, nations are deterred from violence. The costs associated with “waging war are highwhen trade levels are high, and this serves to restrain actors who might otherwise have anincentive for war.” Those with a vested interest in the economically interdependent system risktaking losses when trade relations are disrupted from conflict. In liberal capitalist systems inwhich exporters may hold a “strong check on any illiberal policy” enacted by the government,conflict can be avoided. Those who have vested interest in economic gains have a voice in thedirection of foreign policy. Where “trade provides high material benefits to certain groups ofpeople—either the society as a whole or particular vested interests,” the possible lost profitsserve to deter conflict aggressive policy. Liberalism explains why increasing economicinterdependence decreases the likelihood of conflict because the costs associated act as adeterrent and the opportunities of cooperation beneficially power all parties.4Neo-MarxismNeo-Marxism draws on traditional Marxist theory and incorporates critical theory as it extendsinto international relations. Marxism explores how class determines security and contends that“the capitalist mode of production and the modern sovereign states system (that emerged roughlyat the same time) are not natural or inevitable events.” Critical theory seeks to open up securitystudies and ask questions about the dominant theories and social orders. It is not a single schoolor line of thought but a group of ideas that attack theories and orders from various points ofthought. Analyzing Neo-Marxism, which falls within the Frankfurt school of critical theory, ananalysis of economic interdependence can be taken by asking questions about the nature ofstates, such as who holds power. Neo- Marxist theory foremost incorporates aspects of bothliberal theory and realist theory within its discourse, yet diverges from the various assumptionsthat these theories hold. Neo-Marxism asserts that more capitalism creates more conflict. Thecore of this assertion relies on the scarcity of resources and conflict over control in thecapitalistic sphere. Neo-Marxism uses critical theory and Marxism to derive that more economicinterdependence through capitalism leads to more conflictIn response to liberal theory, Neo-Marxism links resource allocation with economic values toascertain that increasing economic interconnections lead to conflict. Liberalism insists thateconomic interdependence reduces conflict because increasing trade relations can build powerfor all parties involved and is mutually beneficial. The Neo-Marxism lens provides a differentperspective to this hypothesis.. Vladimir Lenin “declared that capitalist trading states are morelikely to engage in war against peripheral states in order to find cheap raw materials, exportmarkets for their mass-produced goods, and places to invest surplus capital.” This entertains theidea that to continue an economic system founded on consumerism, which requires the continueduse of natural resources, conflict is required to find these resources at an economicallyadvantageous value. Liberalism's assertion that power can be gained by all parties within this isundone by viewing the relationship between nations as unequal and exploitative. When resourcesbecome scarce Neo-Marxism posits that tactics of violence ensue to ensure the economic successof the stronger party. The subsequent economically interdependent trade relation is unfair andsustained by conflict. The reliance on this dynamic for continued growth enables and maintainsthis dynamic of conflict. Neo-Marxism promotes a link between increasing economicinterdependence and conflict through analyzing the consumerist principles of liberal theory andits inequalities of power between nations.Another way in which Neo-Marxism theory posits the increase of conflict as a result ofeconomic interdependence is by drawing on realist theory. An argument for realism made claimsthat increasing economic interdependence increases conflict as a result of the uncertainty anddependency it generates. Neo-Marxism takes this argument in pieces and agrees that “the needfor secure trade and investment ties makes these groups [nations] worry about their future control5over their economic partners.” To secure trade and economic growth, actors must pursue withforce, if necessary, the security of having direct control over resources and the security of notbeing dependent on others for development. These “groups are driven primarily by the materialgains from commerce.”Neo-Marxism diverges from realism in the point that nations are not black boxes. Borrowingfrom liberalism, Neo-Marxism contends that the type of government and institutions at play havean important impact on the foreign policy and how security is viewed. Taking this liberaldiscourse to counter the realist black box assumption is not without alteration. Neo-Marxismemphasizes how “economic elites and interest groups [pressure] political elites into war tofurther their narrow material concerns.” Unlike liberalism's favor of democratic power andrealism's preference for black box assumption, Neo-Marxism incorporates traditional Marxism'sclass distinction. For the economic elite to be able to influence with such a degree as to push forconflict for obtaining raw materials, conditions of unity among them, agreement with militaryuse, and overall political influence must exist. These inherent class distinctions arise fromcapitalistic endeavors. Dominant liberal discourse that favors this capitalist-consumeristeconomic system would, according to Neo-Marxism, always see the opportunity for class abusesby the power of elites. Capitalism directed by elites of society requires a constant supply ofcertain and independent material to continue progress. Increasing economically interdependentsystems, according to Neo-Marxism, draws closer to the need for actual conflict in obtainingresources. Neo-Marxism strongly criticizes both realism and liberalism by drawing on traditionalMarxist theory and critical theory. Neo- Marxism disagrees with both the black box narrative ofrealism, and liberal peace. As a result, economic interdependence from capitalist-consumeristendeavors is led by class elites that will employ conflict if necessary to continue the certainty andindependence of their resource supply.6

Economic Interdependence and Conflict: An International Relations Theory Analysis

https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=gazette

Economic Interdependence and Conflict: An International Relations Theory Analysis

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Gettysburg College