2
of liberal hypotheses about conflict and discusses existing empirical support for these
propositions. The final section concludes.
LIBERAL INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY
A number of authors have noted that liberal international relations theory lacks a
coherent and consistent foundation (e.g. Doyle 1986, Keohane 1990, Zacher and
Matthew 1995).
1
Much of this may due in part to the eclecticism of liberal approaches in
international relations. Focusing on a number of explanatory variables including
international trade, national preferences, democracy, international institutions, and
transnational society, these approaches have been fit into a number of classifications--
ideational liberalism, republican liberalism, sociological liberalism, commercial
liberalism, and regulatory liberalism.
2
Liberal hypotheses can be found across the
traditional paradigmatic boundaries of the field—namely the relative attention given to
structure or agency; and the extent to which structure is composed of ideational or
material elements.
3
For example, while the primary ontological foundation of liberal
theory is its focus on individual goals and actions to understand social behavior (e.g.
Arblaster 1984, 15-37; Gray 1995, xii), some liberal approaches in international relations
have adopted the state or the collective as the primary unit of analysis. Additionally,
different conceptions of the state can be found in liberal IR theory. While Moravcsik
(1997) views the state as captured and representative of the dominant group in society,
others have adopted a pluralist conception of the state by treating it is an arena of social
conflict in which the state simply responds to and aggregates competing societal
interests.
4
Moravcsik (1997) has sought to redress these shortcomings by laying out the
building blocks of a liberal theory of international relations. He argues that this paradigm
is defined by three key assumptions identifying the relative role of society, the state, and
the international system in explanations of interstate behavior. Private individuals or
societal actors are the fundamental actors or units of analysis in international politics.
The state serves as a representative institution that seeks to realize the interests of the
most powerful groups of society. The degree of compatibility or conflict among state
interests then determines the quality and character of international relations.
While not ignoring systemic goals or pressures, liberal theory suggests that
international constraints first alter societal interests, which are then aggregated by
1
Keohane (1990, 172-173) writes, “In contrast to Marxism and realism, liberalism is not committed to an
ambitious and parsimonious structural theory. Its attempts at theory often seem therefore to be vaguely
stated and to yield uncomfortably indeterminate results.”
2
For typologies of liberal theory see Keohane (1990), McMillan (1997), Moravcsik (1997), Zacher and
Matthew (1995). Zacher and Mattew (1995) cast perhaps the broadest view of liberal theory. They also
describe additional variants labeled military liberalism, cognitive liberalism, and ecological liberalism.
3
See for example the typology in chapter 2 of Katzenstein (1996).
4
Zacher and Matthew (1995, 118) write, “Liberals view states as the most important collective actors in
our present era, but they are seen as pluralistic actors whose interests and policies are determined by
bargaining among groups and elections.” Krasner (1978, 26-30) also describes liberal IR Theory in a
similar fashion. To the extent that it opens up the black box of domestic politics at all, commercial
liberalism usually adopts a pluralist conception of the state by assuming that increasing exposure to global
markets will increase the domestic political power of trading sectors
Convention