Neo-liberal institutionalism and the role of nonstate actors in international relations

Power, Interdependence, And Nonstate Actors in World Politics

Power, Interdependence, and Non-state Actors in World Politics

In the late 1970s, new approaches emerged concerning international relations. Although the constituents of the new approaches appear in numerous literatures, several political scholars combined the themes in the various literatures to develop a competitor to realism, which later led to the formulation of neo-realism. This model was first discussed in Power and Interdependence; however, this approach is currently popular and referred to as neo-liberal institutionalism. After three decades since Power and Interdependence, numerous studies suggest that this new model has gained significant international relations. On the other hand, After Hegemony, which is core to the neo-liberal model, provided the most compelling theoretical support for the existences and role of international institutions in global politics (Milner and Moravcsik, 2009).

Since the advancement of the neo-liberal, approach is now apparent in numerous works including Legalization and World Politics, The Rational Design of International Institutions, and Delegation and Agency in International Organizations. The works provided are typical examples of how chief ideas of neo-liberal institutionalism approach push them into new areas of study. In addition, they affirm to the continuing theoretical power of the approach. The approach has also proven that it is empirically fit. For instance, globalization has made the globe connected as Power and Interdependence as seen in the past. Among other issues in world politics, such as non-state actors, and international institutions, globalization has made neo-realism, a less potent explanation of global relations and has raised the significance of neo-liberal approach.

Some of the areas addressed by the neo-liberal approach emphasize on non-state actors, including international institutions on forms of power besides military force and threats, the role of interdependence, anarchy in the global system, and on the significance of cooperation including conflict in global politics (Keck and Sikkink, 1999). Although these factors show variations with some elements depicted in realism and neo-realism, some scholars have utilized many aspects, which they have advanced significantly. Notably, neo-liberal institutionalism shares some similar aspects with the approach it greatly contests, neo-realism. However, neo-realism and neo-liberal institutionalism foster for a systematic theory, which will address international politics.

Additionally, systematic theorists suggest that an international system has a significant impact on states; the setting limits and shapes them powerfully. Due to this, the theorists comment that it is important to consider the external forces in any theoretical explanation concerning global relations. Failure of considering the external factors would lead to confusion on variables that they would utilize to offer explanations on a systematic outcome. Neo-realists perceive anarchy and the balance of capabilities as the primary factors, which pose substantial impacts on states. On the other hand, although neo-liberal institutionalisms suggest that the factors are important, they also think that the effects of anarchy result from mutual interdependence and the current nature of modern poetics.

While the both agree that systematic-level theory is the most appropriate approach, there is a need to agree on norms, rules and decision-making procedures, which the involved must align or work in line. This is mainly because there are numerous state practices that are institutionalized in ways that norms, rules and principles exist, which serves as references to state's behaviors in certain issues, in particular areas. For neo-liberal institutionalism, world politics is a form of institutionalism, but to varying degrees in various issue areas and states. In the current era, almost every sector concerned with global cooperation is formalized into either a global institution or an actual organization. Although this was the case, some scholars felt that powers vested upon institutions mattered, and integration of power and interdependences would combine to establish institutional change (Haglund and Hawes, 1990).

Statement of the problem

One of the most popular elements of the international political system in the twenty first century, there has been a significant surge concerning the importance of non-state entities. In addition, with the development of interdependence and communication among the numerous global societies, this has seen to the establishment of various organizational structures, which operate on regional and global basis. The primary problem comes in because of the rise of these transitionally organized non-state actors, and their substantial inclusion in global politics because they do challenge the assumptions of traditional models to international relations, which assume that all states are the only significant aspects of the international system. Additionally, it also raises a problem because some scholars recognize that these non-state actors and their activities have contributed to significant changes in global politics, but other scholars comment that it is possible to treat the international system based on inter-state relations.

Literature Review

Sources of Power in World Politics

Globalization does not only change the economy of a country, but also the power relations, cultures and environments. It has the capacity to alter the power relations; in the context of international relations, it changes the power of the developing nations in the already developed states. On the other hand, in the context of domestic relationships, it alters the power relations among governments, business, and the civil society. For instance, in the period until the late 1980s, the power of rich states has increased greatly when compared to other states. This is the main contributor to the widening gap apparent between many states, in terms of wealth and poverty.

During the period, some rich nations paved way or allowed new members, especially non-western to their countries. Although Japan became a global power, the global institutional architecture adopted during the period, was unsatisfactory, and gives inadequate influence to developing states. During the third wave of globalization, it is apparent that economic power shifted from industrial states for the first time in over a hundred years. Economies of the new globalized states are developing at much faster pace compared to economies of OECD member countries, but China and India are gradually becoming significant political powers, arising from their economic control in the globe (Keohan and Nye, 2001).

In addition, numerous developing states have shown the desire in the development of world architecture mainly because it decreases the inequality of power. The third wave globalization has seen to the significance of developing states in the world politics arena because of their contribution in the world economy. In addition, their growing presence is evident in the power relations within several global institutions including WTO, UN Security Council, World Bank and IMF. Notably, globalization does not confine the independence of state governments in some contexts, but they must have some freedom to manage between trade, capital flows and labor, including the freedom to manage culture and their environments.

Power refers to the ability to achieve the desired outcomes, but it can also involve the altering of behaviors of others to achieve the results. However, to achieve the desired outcomes, a state must possess resources including population, territory, natural resources, economic stability, military, and policy stability. In the international context, there exist two types of power, which are realistic and structural power. Realistic power has the traditional sense of state power as an international actor, whereas structural power refers to the capacity to make decisions concerning safety, knowledge, production of goods and services, and provision of money in forms of credit.

Other scholars define power differently. Some define power using three categories, which are: i) military power, which possesses the highest amount of power in politics, ii) economic power, which submits to the power possessed by the military. Economic power aligns towards the desires of the state, iii) power on the opinion, which refers to the art of convincing or persuasion as in the case of politics. On the other hand, some elements found in the national power include Geography, Natural Resources, Industrial Capacity, Quantity, and Quality of the military forces. The military force was traditionally the affirmation of great power, but currently the grounds of power has changed due to the emerging of economic power (Nye, 2005).

Early studies suggest that an overview of the concepts of economic power, calls for the need to consider the economic aspects when introducing an economic approach to international policies. This is because some politically powerful nations can use their economic power in international relations to rule over other nations, especially those that are yet to develop. This suggests that it is important to differentiate between economic strength and economic power. A simple overview of the two: economic strength is the medium in, which may or not apply as a power to influence other countries.

On the other hand, economic power is that force, which some states may use to dominate or control. Therefore, the capacity to affect the decisions of other nations is influence and power refers to the use of physical means to influence the decisions. Using the information provided it is apparent that economic power has gained prominence in recent decades, and now it is a very important aspect in military power. This arises from the fact that the international political plan has achieved peace and constitute of subjects concerned with gaining global welfare, which precludes the use of the military power to resolve conflicts.

Interdependence in World Politics

Interdependence in global politics suggests that actors have a correlation or a connection such that one factor influences one of the aspects, on a single occasion and in a single place will influence other actors. Therefore, a particular system in, which there are more actors, more places and more occasions there will be substantial interdependence. Using this information, the term "interdependence" refers to situations whereby actors or events in various parts of a system affect each other. Simply put, interdependence means mutual dependence. The greater the extent of interdependence between nations, for instance, there is a higher probability to lose control they experience over a part or all of their ability to make independent decisions.

Interaction is not entirely on requirements and responses, and actions of nation states, global organizations, and numerous non-state actors. It is also on transactions across national borders such as trade, tourism, investment, technology transfers, and ideas processed over the internet. Some scholars suggest that interdependence is a relation of interest such that, when a state changes its position, other states are likely to feel the impact of the change. In the economic context, states are in the state of growing interdependencies, when national sensitivity against external economic developments. Interdependence implies sensitivity, suggesting that if an actor of a given system is indifferent to some change in the relationship, which influences other states, the type of interdependence evident is asymmetrical (Rosecrance and Stein, 1973).

The costs of interdependence may have a relation to sensitivity, which may apply in short-term or long-term, whereas the sensitivity has a relation to the significance and rapidity of the impacts of dependence. On the other hand, the costs of vulnerability have a relation to the costs of modifying the structure of an interdependence system. Some scholars suggest that being independent is a source of power. For instance, if there are two interdependent parties, but one of them is less dependent, then the less dependent party holds more power. Additionally, being neutral in interdependence may have both negative and positive impacts.

A typical example illustrating negative and positive views is that of neo-liberalism and neo-realists. Neo-liberalism believes that interdependence is likely to lead to improved cooperation among states, whereas the neo-realists suggest that interdependence will lead to instability and potential conflicts. The global welfare is likely to be higher if there was the development of a more elaborate division of labor, but this would place states in positions, which make them closely interdependent. This means that increased interdependence of states means that some states will experience vulnerabilities associated with greater interdependence. In addition, some states choose to control what some organizations depend on or eliminate their degrees of their dependency.

However, some studies suggest that interdependence in the international political economy will likely to generate conflicts, which may lead to instability. In addition, the growing economic interdependence between states suggests less effective political exploitation through an economic blackmail. The advantage of each party in an interdependent system relies on the actions of other members of the community suggests that all the parties, including the members are vulnerable to threats and promises made by others (Kehoane, 1984). This further makes it apparent that increasing interdependence will increase the need for institutional arrangements to influence the mutual interference as well as provide members of the system. However, in some instances, the involved parties and members can use some pressure against violators of the rights of an institution.

Non-state Actors in World Politics

Nation-states are the primary actors in global politics, but they are not the only actors. In the international system, it includes nation-states, international organizations and the private actors. The increasing levels of economic, political, social, and cultural transactions between states, societies and individuals, have led to large numbers of international organizations. This might seem as a good thing, but the growth of various non-state actors will challenge and to some extent weaken the "state-centric" notion of international politics by replacing it with a "transnational" system in, which constitutes complicated relationships. Additionally, these numerous international organizations serve as a challenge because they alter the international environment (Kegley and Wittkopf, 1990).

In addition, the emergence and rapid growth of non-state actors has led to perceptions that states are declining in importance, instead, the non-state actors are gaining substantial status and influence. Therefore, some scholars have developed new theories of international theories, for instance, the "complex interdependence" aiming at explaining new developments. The theory comments that as the globe grows smaller, there is increased mutual dependence between nation-states and other transnational political actors. In reference to the traditional classification, non-state actors comprise of two categories, which are (IGOs) and (NGOs).

IGOs

The government has documented IGOs and NGOs. The NGOs are a group of non-state international actors established by a certain group of individuals such as businesspersons or other societal forces. This group does not have legal bonds with the nation-states, which makes them completely transnational. On the other hand, IGOs refer to voluntary associations comprising of sovereign states created to pursue numerous goals, which the involved states desire to cooperate through a type of formal structures that states are not able to achieve individually. Stronger states create IGOs because they want to protect their interests. Decisions made by IGOs are the results of conciliations between the assigned governmental representatives. Generally, it is not idealism, but the need of states, which incline them to cooperate with other states in line with IGOs.

Classification of IGOs are classified by scope and by function, and they are extras of nation-states and play important functions by providing mediums of cooperation and numerous guides of communication among states in sectors where cooperation and communication offer advantages for all or most states (Miller, 1994). The main functions of IGOs include rule making, setting agendas, and gathering information. Additionally, IGOs decrease the uncertainty between states and search for solutions to global challenges. They also monitor principles, norms, and rules of global institutions and international regimes in nation-states. They also decrease the costs involved in collecting information, which many poor and small countries will afford.

However, the effectiveness of IGOs varies from one issue to another, one regime to the other, one state to the other, and one period to another. The powerful states face less constrains by principles of IGOs compared to those who are relatively weak. Additionally, the influence of IGOs is dependent on the ability of governments of member nations to execute their provisions. In addition, most of the governments face serious constraints confining their capacity to apply the provisions of regimes to areas and activities under their jurisdiction. Although powerful nation-states utilize international organizations, they make a difference in international interactions and have evident influence on the renowned powerful state on earth, the United States (Karns and Mingst, 1990).

NGOs

Non-governmental organizations refer to institutions established by non-state actors, or at least one side of the organizations does not comprise of the state. There are numerous types of NGOs including transnational, government organized, government regulated and confined, business and industry, donor-oriented, organizations run by people, operational, others fight for advocacy, social movements, quasi, and NGOs against the government. The NGOs increased which made them effective for transnational politics and became more important in the recent past. They have gained vitality in the global policy making process, and they have the capacity to mobilize global networks by developing transnational organizations, collecting information through global contacts, alert global supporters to urgent situations, creating emergency response around the globe, and mobilizing external pressure (Brown, 1995).

NGOs also take part in IGO conferences by mobilizing transnational social movements' organizations around developing issues in IGOs. It is evident that NGOs carry out various types of activities within states such as connecting to local partners, connecting to transnational social movements with contemporary skills, working in national arenas to bring together state policies, offer humanitarian help, and safeguarding people in danger (Mingst, 1999). They also foster the participation of the public within states by reminding the government delegates that they are being watched; enhance public understanding, increasing transparency of international negotiations and organizations, and thereby provoking the public to protest.

Notably, numerous NGOs that operate at transnational level have become important contributors when it comes to foreign policies of nation-states. In addition, NGOs lobby at global and transnational levels. It is also important to note that, human rights advocates, gender activists, religious movements, developmentalists and indigenous people have attacked the territory of nation-states. As commented in an early study, most of the countries in the globe have become interdependent, it has become a common place for non-governmental groups representing the same societies in their different countries to monitor closely their policies and to constitute or reconstitute themselves as international non-governmental organizations (Haynes, 2001).

Methodology

In this chapter, I will provide the methodological choices; discuss some challenges related to fieldwork, bias and sources; explain how the method relates to the problem statement and the structure of the evaluation, and finally, provide information concerning the reliability and validity of the method employed.

Qualitative Single Case Study

This study is an interpretative social research because it is a single-case case study, which is core to qualitative methods. Qualitative research refers to any type of studies that generates findings not arrived at through any statistical procedures or other ways of quantifications. This can comprise studies concerning people's lives, experiences, habits, and emotions, including organizational functioning, social movements, cultural phenomena, and interactions among different states of the globe. While it is possible to find some aspects of quantification, many authors suggest that the bulk of the evaluation is interpretative. In addition, the various methods employed by qualitative studies, such as interviews and observations, they are not exclusive. The information collected through these methods will often be quantified later, hence referred to as "nonmathematical process of interpretation, carried out aiming at discovering notions and relationships in raw data and then organizing the information in a theoretical framework."

Additionally, this study begins with making a decision on an interesting subject, examine the topic in the field then allow, "Focus and themes emerge," creating research frameworks in the course of the research process. Therefore, this study bases its information on building rather than testing the theory, and the resulting information is similar to reality. Politics is a topic that scholars cannot quantitatively determine because there is an assumption that the variables utilized are central in "meaningful social and cultural environments." Additionally, power, non-state actors and interdependence, are grounded in normative frameworks, and the challenges or their various attributes are presumably only to be understood within a social setting utilizing interpretative methods. In order to determine the influence of interdependence, power, and non-state actors in the global political arena, a qualitative approach is utilized in the study to determine the correct assumptions concerning the nature of the influence.

This study has espoused the notion of an iterative qualitative approach because the study aims to provide an understanding of interdependence, power, and non-state actors in the global political arena. However, many attributes found in this study borrow from the grounded theory, a significant amount of the information covered contemporary theory and my objective was to add upon the existing literature more than to create my own literature. The method utilized for interpreting the data will rely on the theory used because this particular study is descriptive and its primary objective is to provide an understanding, rather than offer an explanation.

Reliability, Bias

Reliability in qualitative studies involves openness concerning the research process and making certain on documenting the procedures in a way that could allow for repetition. In addition, this study has stated the methodological choices and uses sources in a manner that it is possible to create the points of access to the information, and uphold clarity and transparency in all the interpretative decisions made. Overall, the reason why this study employs reliable sources and states the methodological choices is to minimize errors and bias.

Discussion

Non-state actors play an important role in the making policies concerned with nation-states; therefore, they have substantial influence on the foreign policy behavior. This is because they can lobby in both local and global environments to mobilize their homes or host states and national and global public opinion. They are active in more than one state; this means that they can exploit countries against one another. Non-state actors hire former bureaucrats and political leaders, in addition to personal connection from their employees. Currently, they are substituting nation-states in many areas.

Owing to globalization, many NGOs, which operate on international and transnational levels, have become significant determinants of foreign policies of nation-states. Similar to non-state actors, NGOs also operate at domestic levels and lobby in their respective states, and they have the capacity to lobby at global levels (Attaman, 2003). Therefore, there is no single nation-state, which can ignore their existence and effectiveness. Owing to their increased significance, non-state actors forced international relations students to revise their theoretical points-of-view, and establish more explanatory theories.

Although realists perceive IGOs as state instruments because they cannot alter the belief and behaviors of the states, some scholars argue that the realists are empirically inadequate and inefficient. Their main point of reference is that states as unitary actors are a subject of question owing to the bureaucratic politics, domestic politics, liberal, transnational, and regime approaches (Waltz, 1979). Currently, research suggests that non-state actors are not in a position to provide solutions for their own problems. They are not able to deal with challenges such as acid rain, nuclear contamination, climatic alterations, poverty, over-population and inadequate natural resources. Although neo-liberals accept the state-dominated perception of realists, they comment that international institutions are part of the world system and efficient in global politics.

There is a firm relationship between the allotment of power and the functions of non-state actors. According to realism, power is the primary variable, which can explain the behavior of states. Realists do not provide substantial chance for global cooperation and effective global organizations. However, some scholars argue that the realist's primary concepts to explain the high possibility of international cooperation. This is because actors put their efforts to achieve long-term interests, whereas realists put their efforts to achieve short-term interests. Owing to this, it is apparent that non-state actors, who put their efforts to achieve long-term goals, have substantial influence in international politics.

Many scholars in the political science filed accept the role of non-state actors, including some neo-realists. However, they differ on the level of significance and effectiveness of non-state actors. Additionally, the increasing level of interdependence in the international environment has a direct relation to the increase in the international relations. Notably, non-state actors are gradually becoming important tools within the international environment. In this 21st century, it is complicated to evaluate international politics and behaviors of non-states without attaching significance to them. Therefore, nation-states have no choice, but attach importance to non-state actors if they want to maintain their interests.

Conclusion

Every state, poor or rich, has a responsibility to play when it comes to international politics. Additionally, international relations play an important role in maintaining peace and shaping the states by limiting their power. On the other hand, although interdependence seems like the most appropriate way to reduce conflicts, it can actually be a source of conflict. This is because one country may end up being more dependent on the other, whereas the other may emerge more powerful than the former. Owing to this, it can lead to significant power wrangles between the involved parties. Traditionally, the military was the main source of power for any state. A larger the military translates to greater or powerful is the state. However, currently, the economy of a country will determine its power, which may translate to its political influence in the international system. Although politics is an important aspect in the globe, it is a complicated aspect, which scholars suggest is complicated to evaluate on a global scale.