Chapter 1: Introduction
2.3 Research Theory and Method
2.3 Research Theory and Method
Research Theory
The Liberalism Movement is a multidimensional tradition beginning in the seventeen-eighteenth centuries. It represents one of the most important political ideologies within the Western Political Philosophy. Knud Erik Jorgensen (2010) in “International Relations Theory:
A New Introduction,” explains the pillars of the liberalist tradition: a strong faith in human reason, a belief in historical progress, a focus on state and society relation as well as international politics, and economic interdependence theory, which claims that the likelihood of conflict is reduced when states are economically interdependent. Interdependence theory is based on David Ricardo’s assumption of comparative advantages. Liberalist thought aims to promote peace and institutionalize international relations. A network of international organizations and agreements will prevent wars. “Anarchy can be molded,” explains Jorgensen (2010). The liberalist school of thought provides a counter argument to the realist perspective of international relations. (Jorgensen 2010)
Among several branches of thought within the liberalist tradition, Neoliberalist Institutionalism has a peculiar perspective on International Relations. This theory will be further explored in this thesis. R. Keohane and J. Nye developed and contributed to the core ideas of neoliberal institutionalist theory. As such, Keohane (1989) defined this new trend.
“Neoliberalism Institutionalism asks question about the impact of institutions on state action and about the causes of institutional change: it assumes that states are key actors and examine both the material forces of world politics and the subjectives self understanding of human beings” (Keohane 1989)
The liberal institutional theory truly expanded its assumptions on the benefit of interdependence in the 1970s. After the First World War, neoliberalists sought peace. The creation of the “League of Nations” was supposed to launch a new liberal order against realist power politics. Although its failure was a disappointment, neoliberalists aimed to improve
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
institutionalist theory. After the Second World War, the emergence of institutions was a chance for neo-institutionalist to further explore their assumptions. The goal was to “establish cooperation habits that would gradually moderate the conflicts that would otherwise lead to war.” Nevertheless, the particularity of the Institutionalist theory is that neo-institutionalist scholars accept some features of the neo-realist perspective and argue beyond.
Therefore, the two schools of thought share ideas, such as that states pursue self-interested goals in terms of security and material, but Keohane (Keohane 1989, pp. 1-20; 101-31) argues that that competition can be solved by institutions. Furthermore, to go beyond the simple fact that state decisions are driven by self-interests, neo-liberalists developed a framework. The so-called “utilitarianism” framework explains that states cooperate to pursue their interest in a more positive way within institutions. Indeed, Institutions provides a platform where states can maximize their gains and minimizes losses through cooperation. This enlightened argument seeks to refute realist theory (Richardson 2008).
To better understand the core ideas of this school of thought, it is important to define what institutions really are. According to Neo-Institutionalism, there are three forms of international institutions (Viotti, Kauppi 2010, p. 133) :
Formal Inter-governmental or cross-national, non-governmental organization: those are entities with bureaucratic organization, explicit rules and defined missions
International Regimes: institutionalized rules agreed by states regarding certain issues
Conventions: informal institutions with implicit rules and understanding
Institutions also vary in number of membership and size. They can be regional, international, narrow-issued, wide-issued, etc. They also vary in degree of enforcement, as well as provide a mechanism for dispute resolution and react to states’ noncompliance. They have different collective decision-making processes. All these different features of institutions contribute to institutional design (Stein 2008).
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Neoliberal Institutionalists see institutions as a solution to the dilemma of the nature of state self-interest. In fact, the heart of the neoliberal institutionalist theory is the perception of international institutions as the self-interested creation of states. International institutions are also a solution to coordination problems and the so-called "equilibirium selection." If there is little conflict of interest, the institution will be easy to establish. On the other hand, if there are conflicts of interest, the institution will be harder to establish, but will provide a platform to overcome these issues. The neo-institutionalist theory can base its argument on the Prisoner Dilemma in which autonomy results in poorer outcome. Moreover, Institutions allow states to overcome the collective action problem. By grouping together, the participation cost regarding a certain issue is lower. In addition, states engage themselves in institutions knowing that they cede some of their freedom of action in order to achieve greater outcome. It opposes the state of nature as defined by realists. This statement can relate to Modern Game Theory. Moreover, by creating institutions, states reduce the cost of governance, which autonomous decision-making tends to generate (Stein 2008, pp. 202–221).
On the other hand, it is important to mention the main critics of this theory. Some scholars point out the problem of relative gains. In international institutions, there is a distributional issue, and not simply welfare maximizing ones. If other states gain more from cooperation than others, the unbalanced gain distribution will generate rivalry. There is also a problem of coercion within Institutions. The “coercion for the powerful” defines a situation where a coercive perspective from certain states leads mutual interests thus overshadowing some members. Thirdly, the “Power of Clubs” analysis assumes that states are pressured to enter institutions to avoid isolation thus excluding other alternatives (Stein 2008). To respond to these critics, neoliberalists think that despite economic integration favoring some states more than other, states are willing to accept asymmetric distribution of absolute gains.
Obviously, this statement is applicable in conditions where mutual gains can be achieved and
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
where there is no threat of the use of force. Hence, states agree to collaborate and to broad the scope of their "short-term" interests". Absolute gains for all are possible (Viotti, Kauppi 2010, p. 135).
While exploring the neoliberal Institutionalist theory, it is worth mentioning that international institutions shape state behaviors and change the nature of world politics. In most of the cases, states respect agreements signed within institutions but compliance depends on the Institution design as well. (Chayes, Chayes A.H 1993, pp. 175–205) Additionally, according to Young, O.R., hegemonic powers establish institutions hence providing a proper structure and leadership. (Young, 1982, pp. 277–297)
In this thesis, the fact that neo-Institutionalism in the liberalist tradition emphasizes that international institutions affect domestic politics is extremely relevant. In fact, according to Skalnes (1998, pp. 44–87) it shapes internal political arrangements. Arthur Stein (2008) also mentions the fact that this topic requires further academic research. This is where this Master thesis will be relevant for academic discovery, as the author will explore more about Institutions shaping domestic politics and how international institutions shape foreign policies among members.
Research Method
In this Master thesis, the author will focus on the interplay between states and international organizations, between China and India and their complex relations within the BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Using the neo-institutionalism theory, it will be assumed that international organization matters in international relations and especially plays a role for Sino-Indian relations. Indeed, China and India are pursuing self-interested goals in terms of security and material, but this can be solved through institutions such as the BRICS and SCO. Concerning the operationalization, the author will use the
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
utilitarianism framework which stipulates that India and China pursue their interest in a more positive way within these institutions. The BRICS and SCO represent a platform where both countries can maximize their gains and minimizes their losses through cooperation.
To properly analyze how the relations between China and India evolve around common membership to institutions, my research will be focused on bottom-up (states to institutions) and top-down (institution to state) approaches. The author will analyze the level of institutionalization, the degree of enforcement and the mechanism of dispute resolution and reaction to state non-compliance of the BRICS and SCO. The author will also explore if these two Organizations will have an impact or not on Sino-Indian relations in the future. As these two institutions are recent, I will also try to provide policy recommendation for further development in order to avoid cooperation issues due to Sino-Indian tensions, as well as the future and possible positive impact of both institutions on China and India foreign policies.
As scholars mostly focus on how states shape international institutions, the reverse concept of how international institutions shape states domestic politics is still under-researched. More precisely, the author is interested in how international institutions impact member state foreign policy.
In order to conduct my research, the author will use qualitative research and more precisely, the case study methodology. To evaluate whether or not international institutions have an impact on Sino-Indian relations, the cases of the BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization will be used. Indeed, the BRICS is a small size member institution so India and China have to directly interact with each other. The evolution of the BRICS provides an angle of the BRICS impact on the Sino-Indian relations. Therefore, the case study of the BRICS will help to answer the research questions. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization is a special case as the membership of India was just recently accepted. The
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
analysis of the Sino-Indian relations within this organization will be a prediction of possible scenarios of how their relations evolve within the SCO. The author will answer precise research questions according to each case.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學