The Dearing Dialogue

Gilpin’s thesis is that a group or state with greater relative power than others, will try to modify the political system in its interests until the cost-benefit of doing so is no longer in its advantage.  Gilpin presents the reader with a framework for understanding this concept, similar to that of Max Weber’s ideal types.  Gilpin’s concept is based off of a few assumptions.  First, that political systems can be understood with the same theories as economic systems, namely the logic of cost-benefit analysis in decision making.  Second, the fundamental nature of international relations has not changed; it “continues to be a recurring struggle for wealth and power among independent actors in a state of anarchy”.  Third, historical experiences are relevant to understanding the international system.

To support his arguments, Gilpin presents examples of dominant powers exerting their control over the international system in order to advance their self interest.  He provides three forms of such control: imperial or hegemonic, bi-polar, and balance of power (between 3 or more).  He explains that a legitimate international order, or an equilibrium, is one in which no state is dissatisfied with the status quo.  Wars are thus fought in order to preserve the prevailing balance of power. 

My analysis of his arguments is that he provides a solid interpretation of the neorealist school of thought.  His economic approach takes on a “neoMarxist” character in that he alludes that economics tends to “influence human action” (69).  In fact it does within Gilpin’s framework, as the effects of changing the political order are weighed for their utility.  His analysis of hegemons is somewhat unconvincing.  One has to question the existence of a hegemon in a system of economic interdependence.  However, the rational objective of any hegemon that actually operates in an interdependent system will be to sustain the status quo.

Trackback URI |