Module 2– Theories of international relations 1
Module 2 - Theories of international relations: realism, liberalism,
constructivism, feminist theory and radical/dependency
Objectives
On successful completion of this module, you should be able to:
●
understand the realist, liberal, constructivist, feminist and radical/dependency perspectives, and
associated theories.
Learning resources
Text
Blanton, S & Kegley, C 2021, World Politics: Trend and transformation, Cengage, Boston, chapter 2.
Key terms
The following key terms are relevant to this study module and the quiz questions will be derived from
the study module key terms. It is important that you consider these terms, paying particular attention
to (a) identifying/defining the key term, and (b) explaining the significance/importance of the key
term.
●
self help
●
national interest
●
collective security
●
security dilemma
●
transnational relations
●
international regime
●
neoliberalism
●
constructivism
●
norms
●
imperialism
●
dependency theory
© University of Southern Queensland
Module 2– Theories of international relations 2
Introduction: Theories overview
This module provides you with an introduction to theories of international relations. Theories are
often described as perspectives with which or through which we can view events. Your textbook has
an excellent and concise chapter on theories, and this should be your main source of information for
this module (although you can browse the McGlinchey book mentioned below). The written material
below covering some of the theories only in depth is provided to assist those students who may not
yet have received their textbook, so they can continue to work on the course while they wait for their
text to arrive. This material in the study book also provides extra details on the radical or Marxist
approach which is only briefly covered in your textbook. It can be used as supplementary material to
the textbook chapter for those students who wish to use it, but if you have access to the textbook you
may only need to skim through the material below. Do not be worried if you initially find the textbook
material on theories confusing, as this is only a small component of the international relations course,
and this will become far clearer by the time you have come to the end of the semester.
I have provided a short summary of the realist, liberal, feminist and constructivist theories, taken from
a table in chapter 2 of the text book. These theories are approaches to international relations or
worldviews that shape our understanding of international events. For example, a single event might
occur such as the overthrow of a dictator in Libya, or a regional economic crisis. A realist might view
this in a very different way to a liberal. This is followed by a more detailed survey of the realist and
radical Marxist perspectives.
While this is not a set textbook and is not a substitute for the course text, if you are waiting to access
the course textbook you can also read appropriate chapters from the following online book.
McGlinchey, S (ed) 2017, International Relations, E-International Relations, Bristol. https://www.eir.info/publication/beginners-textbook-international-relations/
Realism
A core concern of realism relates to war and security, and how vulnerable states can survive in such
an environment. The key actors in the international environment are states, and realists have a
pessimistic outlook on the globe, seeing the world as a place where great powers are locked in
continuing competition to ensure their security. Realists want to ensure peace by protecting their own
sovereign independence and deterring their rivals, and they do this by developing a high level of
military preparedness and alliances with other international actors.
Liberalism
The core concern for liberals is institutionalised peace and how self-serving actors can see the benefits
of working together through rules and organisations to achieve collective gains. The key actors for
liberal theorists are states, international institutions and global corporations. Liberals have an
optimistic take on global affairs as they have a positive view of human nature and a belief in human
progress. Liberals see peace is something that can be achieved by the spread of democratic ideas, the
development of international organisations, by open markets and free trade between states and by
encouraging actors to obey international law. (Just a reminder that the word ‘liberal’ has many uses,
and in the context of international relations refers to the liberal theoretical perspective, rather than the
ideas of an Australian political organisation such as the Liberal Party.)
© University of Southern Queensland
Module 2– Theories of international relations 3
Marxist / radical / dependency perspectives
This perspective draws from the ideas of the 19th century economic historian Karl Marx, further
developed by the views of Russian leader Lenin, and subsequently re-examined by numerous other
theorists. The central consideration is that economic considerations are of key importance, and that
class divisions are an essential part of analysis. It argues that we live in a world of inequality between
rich and poor, and these divisions both within the boundaries of state actors and between different
state actors need to be considered. Key considerations are economic equality and inequality, and these
considerations are more significant than either boundaries between states or liberal beliefs of
interdependency or increasing progress and prosperity for all.
Feminist perspectives
For feminist theorists of international relations, key concerns are the way gender bias has influenced
both international relations theory as well as the way international relations is practised, and how
these levels of bias have intruded on world politics. This includes an examination of past
discrimination and also the way gender issues shape international relations decision-making. Some
key concerns for this approach are that there is a fundamental gender bias both in theory and practice
of foreign policy; that key concepts in international relations (state, power, interest and security) need
to be re-examined; that female perspectives need to be incorporated; and that there has been a
masculine bias in the apparently scientific reasoning that supports international affairs. There are
different sub groups of feminist international relations theorists that include liberal feminists,
postcolonial feminists, post-structural and standpoint feminists. Specific feminist perspectives can
align with other theories, but apply a female-centric worldview to provide what is seen to be a more
objective or realistic assessment of international affairs.
Constructivism
The core concern for constructivists is the shared meanings and images of social groups, and how
these ideas images and identities develop change and shape world politics. The key actors for this
approach to international relations are individuals, non-governmental organisations and transnational
networks. The global outlook for constructivists is neither pessimistic nor optimistic but neutral –
constructivists see that the outlook for the globe depends on the content of prevailing ideas and
values. Peace is achieved by activists who seek to encourage the spread of progressive ideas and
attempt to encourage states to follow appropriate and ethical behaviour. (Blanton & Kegley 2017, p.
35)
Realism is the first perspective you will study. You may find the simplicity of realism attractive, or
alternatively you may find this simplicity gives you the inclination to look further afield, towards a
different perspective. There was an initial introduction to the three perspectives of realism,
radical/world systems and liberalism in module 1, and figure 1.1 which outlines the key points of
each. If you become confused at any stage, I urge you to refer back to it (and to the associated
readings). This simple model explains the basis of complicated theories clearly.
© University of Southern Queensland
Module 2– Theories of international relations 4
Realism: Key factors and issues for realists
The importance of states as actors
Realists argue that historically states have been important actors. The international system evolved
under their auspices, so it is only natural that we should expect them to be important. The
international relations discipline (or mode of study) evolved due to thinkers who were concerned
about how the international system they were part of was working. So they applied the study of their
real life world to their research and writings.
Indeed, they saw a focus on the state as an independent, dominant actor as being preferable to
alternative futures. A world which did not have a constellation of sovereign, independent states
interacting might be one which was susceptible to domination by a global hegemon – such as an
empire or a despotic world government.
Characteristics of the state: sovereignty and independence
Realists argue that the state is characterised by sovereignty and independence from outside
interference. These ideas come from the evolution of the European state system. In 1648 the Treaty of
Westphalia was signed, ending the Thirty Years’ War which had involved many of the states in
Europe. Among other things, this treaty gave states (or rather, their rulers) the right to select what
religion their subjects would follow. This marked a decline in the influence of the Papacy and the
Holy Roman Empire in international affairs, because as institutions they no longer had the universal
authority they had once possessed. The consequences were that there was judicial equality among
states, and that all were otherwise theoretically equal. They had absolute sovereignty within their own
territories.
Perhaps we need to consider what sovereignty is. Internal sovereignty, or control over events within a
state, is the result of a monopoly on the means of coercion or the instruments of violence within that
state by the state. The state controls these and thus has internal legitimacy. When we are stopped by
the police for random breath-testing, we may be annoyed but do not greatly object to the fact that we
as citizens have surrendered this control to the state. In fact, we see it as a good thing as it keeps us
safer on the roads. The police, who are the agents of the state, have the right to do this. The state has
internal legitimacy, because we accept these restrictions that the state imposes upon us.
Another concept popular with Realists is external sovereignty. This argues that there is no higher
authority than the state. A form of international anarchy exists where states are all equal, and have the
right to do whatever they wish to each other. This is an issue that will be discussed later.
Power, ranking and hierarchy in the state system
What is power? One definition is the ability to control outcomes. This is further developed with a
definition which has its roots in Robert Dahl’s idea that power is a situation where A has the capacity
to make B do something that B might otherwise not have done. We could define power using this
simple equation. So, we can think of the power that a state has in a given situation. Referring to the
1999 East Timor Crisis, Australia had no power to resolve the situation until Indonesia allowed it to
intervene under a United Nations mandate. It is not likely that Australia would have risked war with
Indonesia on behalf of the East Timorese who were supporters of independence. So, Australia had
power, but there were constraints on it. Also, Australia possessed power to intervene because it acted
in concert with regional allies, such as South Korea and the Philippines. In 2011 the United States and
several Arab countries wanted to stop Iran from developing a nuclear program, but did not have the
© University of Southern Queensland
Module 2– Theories of international relations 5
power to do so. These countries had the military capability to act against Iran but understood that
there were practical, moral and ethical considerations that made this impossible. Have they taken such
action in 2011 there would have been international condemnation that would have harmed them and
weakened their position in world affairs. Therefore they tried to follow a diplomatic path to achieve
their goal.
Despite being powerful, there are limits to power. In 2015 US President Barack Obama had little
power to rescue girls kidnapped by Boko Haram in northern Nigeria.
Realist thinkers accept that different states have different rankings in terms of their power, thus
leading to a Realist hierarchy of states. This could be arranged in terms of dominant powers, great
powers, middle powers, regional powers, small powers and micro-states. I will provide more detail on
this, but remember that this is a fluid and at times arbitrary form of categorisation. States may move in
and out of different categories for a variety of social, political and/or economic reasons. This occurs
as their international stature changes, and also as the international stature of their neighbours might
change. Thus, power is a relative concept. Specific factors that would also influence a state’s
capability to act might be its relative political stability, the esteem in which it is held by neighbours,
the size of its population, as well as other economic and strategic resources. At times, these categories
may overlap.
●
Dominant powers: A good illustration of this would be either France or Great Britain at various
stages in their struggle for supremacy from 1802 until 1815. At particular times, the France of
Napoleon was greater than all of its enemies (and potential enemies) combined. However,
Napoleon’s system of hegemony broke down following his disastrous invasion of Russia in 1812.
During this period, Britain was constantly undermining Napoleon by using Britain’s economic
power to bribe other European states to fight against Napoleon. In the world of the late 20th
century, the United States for a short while occupied the position of a dominant power, at least in
the years immediately following the collapse of the USSR.
●
Great powers: This would include states such as the United States (if we accept that it is no
longer a dominant power), China, and perhaps Great Britain and France. These are states with
international recognition as significant actors in the international system, even if the last two
mentioned are clearly less powerful. They possess the power to exert military power globally,
have a reasonable degree of economic strength, and have a universally-recognised diplomatic and
legal status as great powers.
●
Middle powers: These are states with interests in several regions of the globe, and are ranked
highly in terms of their economic strength, armed forces, size and international standing. Even if
we felt that China, the United Kingdom and France were not in the above category, we would
place them in the position of being middle powers at the very least.
●
Regional powers: States that exert power throughout their specific region might include India,
South Africa, or Australia.
●
Small powers: These are independent states that are in a position to have influence in
international relations, but usually only in concert with each other. At the time of the Treaty of
Versailles at the end of the First World War, the then small powers such as Australia, South
Africa and New Zealand worked together to ensure that the great powers rewarded them for their
contributions to the war effort.
●
Micro states: These are small states without the capacity to influence international events in a
significant way. These would usually be states with a population of less than one million.
© University of Southern Queensland
Module 2– Theories of international relations 6
The anarchical society
Introduction
As mentioned above, the concept held by Realists that individual states possess state sovereignty and
can do as they wish implies that the world is the scene for international anarchy, or a lack of
government. Below is a discussion of some aspects of this concept of the anarchical society.
International society is characterised by endemic competition and conflict, in which there is no higher
authority than the state itself. Here, Realists draw on the concepts articulated by the Italian
renaissance writer Niccolo Machiavelli (1469–1527). In The Prince, Machiavelli argues that the
survival of the state is of paramount importance. For this reason, the state and the ruler of the state are
above the normal ethics and morals which bind ordinary humans and which guide their relations with
each other. There are often debates as to whether his writings reflect a bleak picture of the ruthless
and cynical Renaissance world, or whether in fact they are just an honest appraisal of the way in
which international affairs are actually work.
Furthermore, this international anarchy in which war is a normal human activity is what we should
expect from the world. Humans are essentially ‘bad’ and prone to conflict, according to this view. The
English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) explained this when he said that the human
condition in a natural state was ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short’. The need to regulate this
unhappy world thus becomes a justification for the role of government in human affairs. If humans
co-exist in states, they are less vulnerable to the pressures of the world. Realists might also argue that
the world is a violent place with reference to the German (Prussian) strategist Carl von Clausewitz
(1780–1831), who maintained that war is the last resort for states to defend their interests, and that
war is naturally linked to diplomacy.
The development of an international society
The Dutch writer Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) argued that a society of sovereign states can, in fact,
exist in this seemingly anarchical world. This international society is more than just an international
system. Grotius was concerned with commercial interactions between states and he observed that
common rules and laws were followed by all, due to the self-interest of all the participants in this
system. His focus on international business and on laws that regulate this can perhaps be linked to his
experiences and his country of origin. The Netherlands was a small but very active trading nation that
did not exert power through brutal force up through informal trading relations.
The purpose of international society, from the Realist point of view, is to keep in place the system
whereby states are the major actors in international affairs. The maintenance of the independence of
states is also important, as is the preservation of peace. These conditions are all maintained by the
balance of power, whereby states ally themselves with each other to prevent hegemony by one other
state over all. The perspective of Grotius adds some further ideas to this. States agree on ideas relating
to the ‘rules of war’ (which is the limitation of violence) and on the practice of devising and keeping
treaties and agreements between states of equal stature.
How an international society works
Having thought about the idea of an international society, we should consider how it operates. What
conditions are necessary to ‘manage’ this apparently chaotic and anarchical world? Essentially, states
must manage this system and respect each other’s interests in order that all may co-exist. After all, it
is logical that states attempt to preserve the system of state sovereignty. To do this, states accept that
© University of Southern Queensland
Module 2– Theories of international relations 7
there are rules which must be followed relating to interaction in a range of areas, including trade and
the treatment of neutral actors during a time of war. Finally, international society functions because
the members of the society (individual states) use a range of institutions and or processes to manage
the world, including the practice of diplomacy, the acceptance of the existence of international law,
the maintenance of alliances, and, at the last resort, the use of war to solve disputes.
So, is there an international society within this world of anarchy? Does international society actually
function at all? Realists would argue that yes, it does. Their examples would come from the height of
the Cold War, when diplomatic relations were maintained between the powers in dispute. In the
Second World War the rules of war were followed in certain instances, in particular with regard to the
restriction on the use of poison gases which were wide-spread during the First World War. While it
may appear that there is not an international society, in fact there is one in existence.
Radical / Marxist theory: Introduction
Remember, for the ‘realists’ the world order is a system of ‘billiard ball’ states in intermittent
collision – what Hedley Bull has called the ‘Anarchical Society’. They see only states as the central,
and sovereign, actors pursuing their ‘national interest’. They view power (and/or force) as the primary
dynamic driving interaction along. They see the task of international relations as one of basically
explaining what states do.
●
From the state-centric perspective we move in this module to a more structural set of views
whereby theorists see the world order as being rather like a multi-headed octopus with powerful
tentacles constantly sucking wealth from the weakened peripheries toward the wealthier and more
powerful centres.
●
The main dynamic at work for these thinkers is economics and the main actors are a hierarchy of
classes. They see the function of international relations as one of showing why the world contains
such appalling contrasts between the rich and the poor. Their perspective has the widest of
boundaries, stressing the unity of the whole world system at all levels and focusing on modes of
production and divisions of labour, as well as treating inter-state politics as merely a surface, but
nonetheless necessary, phenomenon (or, at least, as a set of institutions and processes ‘tainted’ by
more fundamental material forces).
In this module, the textbook introduces you to the views of one of the main contemporary theorists in
this perspective, Emmanuel Wallerstein. But, the roots of this perspective can be traced back to Karl
Marx who believed that it is possible to develop a scientific understanding about what takes place in
capitalist systems and to identify the forces of change which can transform such systems and bring an
end to exploitation.
●
Marx was later seen to have taken insufficient account of the international system in his theory.
This dimension, however, was later embraced by Lenin, whose ‘Theory of Imperialism’ explained
how the acquisition of colonies was related to the development of capitalism. Lenin also tried to
show that conflict among the imperialist states was an inevitable feature of capitalism, but this
view was contested by Kautsky who identified the potential for ‘ultra-imperialism’ with finance
capitalists cooperating in order to ensure the continuation of a system from which they all
benefited.
Major disagreements about essential features of this perspective persist among contemporary
theorists. It is also worth noting that not everyone working within this perspective can be identified as
a Marxist. Despite the disagreements, however, virtually all such theorists are critical of the prevailing
world order which they see as unjust and which they believe perpetuates inequality. They also are
committed to the view that the existing structures will have to be eradicated before inequality can be
eliminated. There is little optimism, though, that such a transformation is likely to be brought about in
the near future or that such a systemic change can occur without volatility.
© University of Southern Queensland
Module 2– Theories of international relations 8
First, let us begin with a brief overview of the phenomenon of imperialism. Defined simply,
imperialism is ‘a relationship of effective domination or control, direct or indirect, of one actor or
group of actors over others’. Historically, while imperialism through direct control may have been
justified by such notions as expansion for the sake of security or carrying civilization and
enlightenment (including religion and the benefits of Western culture and modernization experiences
– note ‘Manifest Destiny’ and ‘The White Man’s Burden’) to societies deemed to be ‘barbarian’,
‘heathen’ or merely ‘a threat’, it generally has been the case that economic motivations lie at its roots.
More contemporary ideas about imperialism (that is, neo-imperialism), which focus on more indirect
and/or informal processes of domination and control, can be divided into two broad strains: MarxistLeninist (‘Radical’) and Non-Marxist-Leninist (‘Liberal’). The former has it that imperialism is a
reflection of an expanding capitalism, necessitated by the contradictions of the capitalist mode of
production (see below). Theorists such as Luxemburg, Hilferding, Bukharin, Lenin and Magdoff are
representatives of this view.
The catalyst for the development of the more radical critiques of world politics and international
relations was European colonial expansion. To begin with, the establishment of Portuguese rule in
Goa seemed to be no different from the establishment of Crusades sites in Palestine, or Spanish rule in
the Netherlands, or any other expansion that had taken place. And, in Asia itself one European power
gave way to another European power: the Portuguese and Spanish to the Dutch and the English and
ultimately to the Americans.
It became increasingly clear that one set of people – the Europeans – were always winning the whole
ball game; and it began to appear that there may be some ‘twist in the rules’ that gave them the
advantage in doing so. It was this latter realization that generated the idea/concept of ‘imperialism’.
And, when I talk about imperialism, I talk about something which is more restricted than simply
expansionism or aggression. If we consider conventional international relations theory, anyone can be
expansionist – it’s only a matter of size and capacity.
Table 2.1: Some forms of imperialism
BJ Cohen (1974, The question of imperialism: the political economy of dominance and dependence)
suggests that the following principal forms of imperialism are identifiable in history (paraphrased by D
McMillen):
1.
During the 16th and 17th centuries, European mercantilism was characteristic of the old or
classical imperialism. Portugal, as one of the first mercantile states, briefly established commercial
dominance in the first half of the 16th century. In an early phase, Portugal implemented an
‘imperialism of exchange’, especially in Africa and in the Far East where major trading points
along the coasts were seized and controlled. In a later phase, exchange imperialism evolved into an
‘imperialism of extraction’, whereby the Portuguese penetrated inland areas to assure their
hegemony over the sources of raw materials (gold, ivory, and later slaves).
2.
A period of ‘transformer imperialism’ emerged after 1870 and thereafter with European empirebuilding, and it represented a shift from informal to formal mechanisms of control and influence in
the colonies. It focused on economic considerations, and two theoretical streams were evident.
One, Marxist in conception, argued that imperialism was a reflection of an expanding capitalism,
necessitated by the contradictions in the capitalist mode of production. The other, liberal in thrust,
played down the consequences of the Marxist interpretation and argued that the inequalities of the
capitalist system could be ameliorated.
3.
Writers also speak of ‘modern imperialism’ in reference to the breakup of empires and the rise of
neo-colonialism. A theory of modern imperialism emphasizes two views. The view from the centre
or metropolis stresses that imperialism is necessary for the advanced capitalist economies, and the
© University of Southern Queensland
Module 2– Theories of international relations 9
view from the periphery focuses on the negative consequences of capitalism in the poorer
economies of the world.
(Source: Cohen, BJ 1974)
But, according to these more radical theorists, only some states can be imperialist. If Indonesia
invades East Timor, that may be aggressive but it is not necessarily imperialist. If the USA invades
Grenada, that may be both aggressive and imperialist. This argument is based on the assumption that
one must look for the underlying reasons for expansion, not merely at the act of aggression or
expansion. The distinctive feature of this perspective is that most writers focus on economic reasons
for expansion. More specifically, they look at the nature of capitalism – the force which gives impetus
to what they deem as ‘real’ imperialism. The basic argument is that whatever reasons there may be for
imperialism at the surface, capitalism has particular characteristics which lead to and sustain
imperialist expansion: any state can be expansionist, but only capitalist states can be imperialist.
Early Marxist views
But Hobson did have an influence on Lenin, who was developing his own theories based on the work
of Marx. Although Marx said very little about imperialism, one of his predictions about capitalism
was that in the capitalist system wealth would become progressively concentrated in the hands of the
ruling class of capitalists. The rich would get richer and the poor would get poorer until the workers of
the world had nothing to lose but their chains and would unite in a revolution and establish a new
proletarian order based ultimately on communism. Within this general framework, Marx seems to be
fairly happy with the overall idea of imperialism, simply because he regarded it as spreading the
capitalist system throughout the world and thereby hastening the long-term progress towards the day
of revolution.
Marx even argued that for societies like India imperialism is probably a very good thing because it
breaks these societies out of the static ‘Asiatic mode of production’. The idea of the Asiatic mode of
production is that Asian villagers have a form of production which doesn’t involve classes; that the
Asiatic village is essentially a communal affair in which there is no class differentiation based on the
ownership of the means of production because they are owned communally. Thus, there is no
possibility for alienation and class tension. But without it, there can be no historical development
either. So, according to Marx, villagers (especially in India) were fortunate to escape this perpetual
and stagnant system through British colonialism. And, although capitalism caused immense suffering
when it penetrated these villages, from Marx’s perspective what mattered more was that it had the
benefit of at least releasing them from this closed system.
Capitalism did not collapse as some early 20th century Marxists had expected and it prompted a
number of Marxists to put forward alternative explanations as to why this had happened in terms of
imperialism. The most important of theorists were Rudolf Hilferding and Rosa Luxemburg.
Hilferding described imperialism as being a consequence of finance (or monopoly) capitalism, which
we will return to below. Luxemburg’s views are somewhat more interesting, as she argued that
capitalism had not collapsed because it was still in the process of expanding into pre-capitalist areas.
According to her, the capital which the ruling class was accumulating in the European capitalist
system was coming primarily from the non-capitalist producers and consumers of what we now call
the ‘Third World’ (also called the Developing World or Global South).
What she was saying was that Marx’s analysis would accurately predict the types of capitalism within
the closed system of a Europe isolated from the rest of the world, but the peasants of the colonies and
semi-colonies gave the capitalist system a good deal of ‘leeway’. Although the rich were getting
© University of Southern Queensland
Module 2– Theories of international relations 10
richer, the proletariat in Europe was getting poorer (and the rich were becoming wealthier faster than
the poor were becoming impoverished). But, the people who were really miserable were the peasants
of the Third World, but because they were not proletarians (workers) as such, they could not launch a
proletarian revolution and therefore the system could not of itself generate a revolution. This is a real
theory of capitalist imperialism because it is saying that the colonies were an essential part of the
capitalist system; it’s not just describing them as some sort of ‘spin-off’.
The Leninist view
This is where Lenin comes into the picture as the man who in fact did not wait for historical trends to
play themselves out and did succeed in launching a revolution in Russia. He didn’t launch a
revolution against a capitalist system there, however; but his revolutionary seizure of power at least
succeeded (although subsequently he and his Bolshevik comrades had to ‘introduce’ a period of
capitalist development in Russia in order to follow the historical dynamics enunciated by Marx). The
basis of Lenin’s Theory of Imperialism is the pamphlet ‘Imperialism – The Highest Stage of
Capitalism’ published in 1916. It wasn’t just a post-Marx explanation for the failure of capitalism to
collapse. It was particularly a response to what for many Marxists was a very disturbing development
around that time – the fact that the working class of Europe had almost universally sided with its
national ruling classes in World War I (in what was supposed to be a war between competing
capitalists). This wasn’t supposed to happen according to Marxist theory.
The argument which Lenin produced to explain this was that, in essence, capitalism hadn’t yet gotten
to the stage of development where the proletariat was fully aware of its proletarian condition. This
should have occurred if one thinks of capitalism as developing into industrial capitalism, but Lenin
argued that beyond industrial capitalism there is a stage called finance (monopoly) capitalism. It was
this finance capitalism that was the key to European imperialism. He contended that when capitalism
began as a state of pre-capitalist competition among a large number of entrepreneurs, gradually some
of them did badly and dropped out while others did well and became more powerful. Gradually, the
system became more and more dominated by a smaller and smaller number of industrial
entrepreneurs. As the industrial system developed, there developed in turn monopolies (by which is
meant all sorts of cartels, combinations, and deals of various kinds).
The characteristic of these monopolies was not that they were monopolies of business, but monopolies
of capital itself. And so, rather than businesses becoming the most powerful elements in the capitalist
economic system, it was the banks who controlled capital that became the most powerful. This led to
the same kind of hatreds as Hobson described within Europe: the return of capital was insufficient and
therefore those who controlled the capital sought-out new investment opportunities overseas. They
sought-out investment opportunities rather than markets, and in order to make those investments more
secure they needed territorial control.
Lenin argued that this capitalist development was a very uneven process. He gave the example of
Britain whose empire gave British capitalists entrepreneurial room to manoeuvre. He thought that the
very fact that there were these territories out there meant that there was more room to manoeuvre for
the industrial capitalists and so it took longer for the phase of finance capitalism to develop in Britain
than it did elsewhere. The counter-example he gave was Germany which had no significant overseas
territories (only a few scattered colonies). The German system was more closed and therefore
monopoly in combination with the development of finance capitalism took place to a much greater
extent in Germany.
Marxist explanation in Russia and Asia took a different line, based on Lenin’s observation that one of
the spin-offs of imperialist expansion was that capitalists made enough money to pay their workers at
home a lot better than they had in the past. He said that imperialism made it economically possible for
the capitalists to ‘bribe’/buy-off individual strata of the working class (and sometimes a fairly
© University of Southern Queensland
Module 2– Theories of international relations 11
considerable minority of them) and win them over to the side of the bourgeoisie of an industry or a
state against all others. So, what he was saying was that, basically, the working class was bought-off
with the proceeds of colonial exploitation.
Many Marxists have used this argument as the basis for suggesting that the truly revolutionary parts
of the world are the oppressed people of the Third World. It is important to think of this as a
transformation of a capitalist system into a world system in which certain regions (peripheries) are
subordinate while other regions (cores) are dominant. Subsequent thinkers, such as Wallerstein, have
developed this into the theory of the ‘Capitalist World-System’, or have developed Marxist (and
Leninist) – related theories of ‘Structural Dependency’ and the ‘Development of Underdevelopment’.
Table 4.2: Professor Don McMillen’s notes on Wallerstein’s theory
●
A World-System consists of:
●
●
a single market
a series of state structures/nations affecting the market
●
three levels (core, semi-periphery and periphery) in an exploitative process involving the
appropriation of surplus labour.
●
Class struggle emanates from the relationship among these levels.
●
Based upon preservation versus destruction of privilege:
‘The capitalist world economy as a totality – its structure, its historical evolution, its contradictions – is
the arena of social action. The fundamental political reality of that world economy is a class
struggle which however takes constantly changing forms: overt class consciousness versus ethnonational consciousness, classes within nations versus classes across nations. (1975, p. 375)
●
Thus, this theory moves beyond a ‘class within nations’ conception and is concerned with a structure
that transcends nation-state boundaries.
●
●
It represents an expanded conception of centre (core) and periphery from that of the ECLA
theorists.
Some argue that this constitutes a theory of the global capitalist economy as a world system, not a
theory of the development of national economies or of an international economy.
●
It is criticised for its attention to the market rather than to production as a basis for analysing class
relations.
There are some objections to Lenin’s theory of imperialism on the grounds that it doesn’t explain
enough and that it is based on circular reasoning – that it limits its explanation to expansionism which
is explained by capitalism then turns around and explains that expansion by capitalism. So, it’s basing
its explanation on its analysis, and vice-versa. Some critics of orthodox Leninism also argue that
Lenin doesn’t explain plausibly why, for instance, Norway and Sweden were not imperialist yet
Denmark and Italy were. One ‘Realist’ scholar, Kenneth Waltz (1979), has stated that ‘[A]dmittedly,
Hobson and Lenin intend to explain imperialism only in the era of advanced capitalism. But one must
then wonder what caused imperialism in bygone periods and why those old causes of imperialism no
longer operate, why they have been replaced as causes by capitalism’. Provocatively, Waltz goes on
to say that:
[T]his question is then raised: Are the advanced countries ‘imperialist’ because they are
capitalist or because they are advanced? The growth of industrial economies in the
nineteenth century spawned a world-girdling imperialism. Was the hegemony of the few
over the many produced by the contradictions of capitalism or by the unlocking of
nature’s secrets, the transmuting of science into technology, and the organization of the
© University of Southern Queensland
Module 2– Theories of international relations 12
powers of technology on a national scale? Is imperialism the highest stage of
industrialism? Similarly, economies of great variety – pastoral, feudal, mercantilist,
capitalist, socialist – have sustained imperialist enterprises. To explain imperialism by
capitalism is parochial at best. Rather than refer to capitalist imperialism, one might
more aptly write of ‘the imperialism of great power’.
Table 2.3: Professor Don McMillen's notes on dependency theory
Definition
It emphasizes the international context, contending that international institutions, multinational
corporations, and the states of the First World have deliberately kept the Third World in a dependent
condition. Dependency Theory draws many of its insights on the relations between the North and South
from a branch of Marxist thought.
Obstacles
It argues that the existing international economic system is inherently biased against the South. This
fundamental inequality of the economic relationship between the North and South fuelled development in
the North and stifled it in the South.
Necessary changes
Southern nations need to diversify their product lines. Although some products are booming on the
international market, others are not. As a result, those nations that produce a primary product that is not in
high demand face difficult times. Theorists believe that the nations of the South need to produce
manufactured goods and diversify their export products. The unequal terms of trade will thus be altered and
must continue to change. Governments must limit the amount of exploitation that multinational
corporations commit.
Problems
The disadvantaged position of the South stems from the fact that most Southern countries’ economies
depend heavily on the export of primary products. These include raw materials such a timber, oil, and
metals, and agricultural goods such as coffee and bananas. Dependency theorists view this as the
international division of labour, in which the South does the ‘dirty work’. Furthermore, the economies of
many of these primary product producers are dominated by a single commodity. Thus, they lack diversity in
the goods and services they can export. These economies can easily go through periods of boom and bust.
Theorists also argue that the terms of trade are against the South – the value of the products that they import
is greater than the value of the products that they export. Consequently, they will lose money. These
situations must be changed. Dependency theorists believe that multinational corporations exploit the South,
hinder its development, and contribute to the widening of the gap between the rich and the poor.
Critiques
Critics of dependency theory argue that a number of Southern states have managed to industrialize and have
done so with the help of Northern investment and trade with developed states. Furthermore, it is unclear
whether a number of dependency theory’s assumptions can be substantiated. Specifically, while
dependency theory contends that the terms of trade are declining for the South, the data do not clearly
support this contention. Critics also believe that dependency theorists lay the blame for the South’s poverty
squarely on the North, with little if any discussion of factors within the developing world itself that
contribute to economic stagnation and poverty.
© University of Southern Queensland
Module 2– Theories of international relations 13
In sum, the objections have been that either Leninist theories of imperialism were not comprehensive
enough, or they were just wrong. But, right or wrong, what do you think were the merits of the
theories of Marx and Lenin?
Third world views
Finally, let us now turn to a brief discussion of some of the views that have framed Third World
conceptions of international relations. Theorists writing from this position do not constitute a coherent
group, but many have accepted the rudiments of Marxist-Leninist analysis or its later variations such
as Structural Dependency or Underdevelopment theory. As a whole, they are dissatisfied that much of
the Western literature merely leaves the Third World as a victim and denies the power of national
identity. Furthermore, they tend to see much of the content of Western writing on imperialism as
based upon Western experiences and values rather than something emanating out of the Third World
itself – and, if it does, many in the West ‘just aren’t listening’. Thus, the writing here is characterised
by antagonism to the West generally, and is oriented towards Third World solidarity. Also, there is a
stress on morality and a detectable – and perhaps understandable – emotiveness in such views.
The following three types of views are offered by Third World Thinkers to explain European
expansion. First, European arrival is explained in the context of legends and/or mythologies.
Europeans are seen as ‘saviours’, ‘spirits of ancestors’, or are fit into new political myths created to
accommodate their arrival. Their arrival is often seen as ‘natural’ and they usually are assimilated into
older political ideologies. Cargo cults frequently have been a vehicle for this. Second, Europeans are
seen as being no different than any others who arrived, and their arrival is interpreted as a reflection of
the moral and/or political ‘decay’ (or disorder and disharmony) of the local society (such as in the
Chinese notion of the loss of the ‘Mandate of Heaven’).
In line with those impacts of European colonial rule on indigenous societies discussed in MarxistLeninist, Structural Dependency and Underdevelopment theories, Third World writers claim that the
experiences were barbarous and destructive of their ways of life – that they contributed little
worthwhile and gave back even less. It is seen as dehumanizing and as being responsible for the
creation of a category of ‘native’ or ‘oriental’ stereotypes, which were used as devices for the
subordination of non-Western peoples. It has left a legacy of humiliation and bitterness, often
reflected in the foreign policy thinking of contemporary non-Western states.
In addressing the question of how to escape from their societies’ condition of subordination and
dependency and to achieve a ‘recovery’, Third World writers have tended to answer in one of three
ways. First, some argue that the solution lies in a form of modernization which adopts (and adapts)
what is ‘good’ (or at least useful) from the West. This involves what has been termed the ‘Stage
theory of development’ (Walt Rostow, et. al.). To a degree, this means to follow in the West’s
footsteps, or to turn to mimicry. Examples of this from the late 19th and early 20th centuries can be
seen in the courses chosen by the Meiji Restoration in Japan.
Second, other Third World figures have called for a strategy of revitalization which involves a return
to and purification of old values and identities. Here there is a promotion of indigenous ‘civilization’
with the West generally seen as being a source of decadence. The emphasis is on the cultivation of a
national identity based largely on indigenized ideology or politico-cultural myths. Examples include
the ‘Mao-ization’ of Marxism-Leninism in 20th century China and Khomeni-ism in Iran.
Third, more ‘radical’ Third World representatives have called for a process of catharsis-literally ‘a
passing through fire’. This normally is a more revolutionary course which is seen to be necessary in
reaching a ‘new’ or ‘radically restored’ condition pursuant to escaping subordination and/or
dependency. Catharsis involves a rehumanizing of society and a degree of retribution. Here, war and
© University of Southern Queensland
Module 2– Theories of international relations 14
violence may constitute desirable (or at least inescapable) methods. An example of this is Mao
Zedong’s ‘Cultural Revolution’ and the Red Guards in China.
But, one also must note that catharsis can involve more peaceful methods, as in Gandhi’s strategy of
‘non-violence’ in the Indian struggle for independence from Great Britain.
Conclusion
Theories are nothing more than approaches, world views or ways of understanding events in the
world. Different theorists would see the same events and develop different conclusions.
Review questions
In addition to the study guide questions below, students should refer to the assigned chapters in the
textbook.
1. Is realism anything more than the ideology of powerful, satisfied states?
2.
Are liberals too idealistic in believing that there is the possibility of human progress?
3.
Do radical theorists place too much emphasis on economic factors?
4.
Do liberal feminists think their goal of giving greater power to women in international
leadership positions will course fundamental changes in the international system?
Recommended references
Baylis, J & Smith, S (eds) 2001, The globalization of world politics, 2nd edn, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Reference list
Baylis, J & Smith, S (eds) 1997, The globalization of world politics, 1st edn, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Bull, H 1977, The anarchical society, Macmillan, London.
Bull, H & Watson, A (eds) 1984, The expansion of international society, Clarendon, Oxford.
Cohen, BJ 1974, The question of imperialism: the political economy of dominance and dependence,
Macmillan, London.
Evans, G & Grant, B 1995, Australia’s foreign relations, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.
Hobson, JA 1988 (reprint of 1938 edn), Imperialism: a study, 3rd edn, Allen & Unwin, London.
Kennedy, P 1988, The rise and fall of the great powers, Fontana, London.
© University of Southern Queensland
Module 2– Theories of international relations 15
Lenin, VI 1916 (1939), Imperialism–the highest stage of capitalism, International Publishers, New
York.
Lautensach, A & Lautensach, S (eds), 2020, Human Security in World Affairs: Problems and
Opportunities (2nd ed.), BCcampus, Victoria. https://opentextbc.ca/humansecurity/
Little, R & Smith, M 1991, Perspectives on world politics, 2nd edn, Routledge, London.
McGlinchey, S (ed) 2017, International Relations, E-International Relations, Bristol. https://www.eir.info/publication/beginners-textbook-international-relations/
McGlinchey, S, Walters, R and Scheinpflug, C (eds) 2017, International Relations Theory, EInternational Relations, Bristol, https://www.e-ir.info/publication/international-relations-theory/
Macredis, R (ed.) 1989, Foreign policy in world politics, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Marx, K & Engels, F 1848 (1946), The communist manifesto, Charles H. Kerr, Chicago.
Owen, R & Sutcliffe, B 1972, Studies in the theory of imperialism, Longman, London.
Rhodes, RI 1970, Imperialism and underdevelopment: a reader, Monthly Review Press, New York.
Rostow, W 1960, The stages of economic growth: a non-communist manifesto, Cambridge University
Press, London.
The Economist 25 Sept. 1993, p. 49.
Viotti, PR & Kauppi, MV 1993, International relations theory: realism, pluralism, globalism, 2nd
edn, Macmillan, London, pp. 449–512.
Waltz, K 1979, Theory of international politics, Random House, New York.
© University of Southern Queensland