当前位置：和泉文库 > 思想政治 > 《国际政治经济学》文献资料（Realism and Liberalism in Political Economy）Liberalism and World Politics

《国际政治经济学》文献资料（Realism and Liberalism in Political Economy）Liberalism and World Politics

文件格式：PDF，文件大小：624.37KB，售价：6.74元

文档详细内容（约23页）

LIBERALISM AND WORLD POLITICS MICHAEL W.DOYLE Johns Hopkins University rowing literature in international reexamine the traditional liberal claim that governments founded on a respect for individual liberty exercise "restraint"and "peaceful intentions"in their foreign policy.I look at three distinct theoretical traditions of liberalism,attributable to three theorists: Schumpeter,a democratic capitalist whose explanation of liberal pacifism we often invoke;Machiavelli,a classical republican whose glory is an imperialism we often practice;and Kant,a liberal republican whose theory of internationalism best accounts for what we are.Despite the contradictions of liberal pacifism and liberal imperialism,I find,with Kant and other democratic republicans,that liberalism does leave a coherent legacy on foreign affairs.Liberal states are different.They are indeed peaceful.They are also prone to make war.Liberal states have created a separate peace,as Kant argued they would,and have also discovered liberal reasons for aggression,as he feared they might.I conclude by arguing that the differences among liberal pacifism,liberal imperialism,and Kant's internationalism are not arbitrary.They are rooted in differing conceptions of the citizen and the state. L romoting freedom elect their governments,wars become im- will produce peace,we have often been possible.Furthermore,citizens appreciate told.In a speech before the British Parlia- that the benefits of trade can be enjoyed ment in June of 1982,President Reagan only under.conditions of peace.Thus the proclaimed that governments founded on very existence of liberal states,such as the a respect for individual liberty exercise U.S.,Japan,and our European allies, restraint"and "peaceful intentions"in makes for peace. their foreign policy.He then announced a Building on a growing literature inin- 'crusade for freedom"and a "campaign ternational political science,I reexamine for democratic development"(Reagan, the liberal claim President Reagan re- June9,1982). iterated for us.I look at three distinct In making these claims the president theoretical traditions of liberalism,at- joined a long list of liberal theorists(and tributable to three theorists:Schumpeter, propagandists)and echoed an old argu- a brilliant explicator of the liberal ment:the aggressive instincts of pacifism the president invoked;Machia- authoritarian leaders and totalitarian rul- velli,a classical republican whose glory is ing parties make for war.Liberal states, an imperialism we often practice;and founded on such individual rights as Kant. equality before the law,free speech and Despite the contradictions of liberal other civil liberties,private property,and pacifism and liberal imperialism,I find, elected representation are fundamentally with Kant and other liberal republicans, against war this argument asserts.When that liberalism does leave a coherent the citizens who bear the burdens of war legacy on foreign affairs.Liberal states are AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW VOL.80 NO.4 DECEMBER,1986

LIBERALISM AND WORLD POLITICS MICHAEL W. DOYLE Johns Hovkins University Building on a growing literature in international political science, I reexamine the traditional liberal claim that governments founded on a respect for individual liberty exercise "restraint" and "peaceful intentions" in their foreign policy. I look at three distinct theoretical traditions of liberalism, attributable to three theorists: Schumpeter, a democratic capitalist whose explanation of liberal pacifism we often invoke; Machiavelli, a classical republican whose glory is an imperialism we often practice; and Kant, a liberal republican whose theory of internationalism best accounts for what we are. Despite the contradictions of liberal pacifism and liberal imperialism, I find, with Kant and other democratic republicans, that liberalism does leave a coherent legacy on foreign affairs. Liberal states are different. They are indeed peaceful. They are also prone to make war. Liberal states have created a separate peace, as Kant argued they would, and have also discovered liberal reasons for aggression, as he feared they might. I conclude by arguing that the differences among liberal pacifism, liberal imperialism, and Kant's internationalism are not arbitrary. They are rooted in differing conceptions of the citizen and the state. Promoting freedom elect their governments, wars become imwill produce peace, we have often been possible. Furthermore, citizens appreciate told. In a speech before the British Parlia- that the benefits of trade can be enjoyed ment in June of 1982, President Reagan only under. conditions of peace. Thus the proclaimed that governments founded on very existence of liberal states, such as the a respect for individual liberty exercise U.S.,Japan, and our European allies, "restraint" and "peaceful intentions" in makes for peace. their foreign policy. He then announced a Building on a growing literature in in- "crusade for freedom" and a "campaign ternational political science, I reexamine for democratic development" (Reagan, the liberal claim President Reagan reJune 9, 1982). iterated for us. I look at three distinct In making these claims the president theoretical traditions of liberalism, atjoined a long list of liberal theorists (and tributable to three theorists: Schumpeter, propagandists) and echoed an old argu- a brilliant explicator of the liberal ment: the aggressive instincts of pacifism the president invoked; Machiaauthoritarian leaders and totalitarian rul- velli, a classical republican whose glory is ing parties make for war. Liberal states, an imperialism we often practice; and founded on such individual rights as Kant. equality before the law, free speech and Despite the contradictions of liberal other civil liberties, private property, and pacifism and liberal imperialism, I find, elected representation are fundamentally with Kant and other liberal republicans, against war this argument asserts. When that liberalism does leave a coherent the citizens who bear the burdens of war legacy on foreign affairs. Liberal states are AMERICANPOLITICALSCIENCEREVIEW VOL. 80 NO. 4 DECEMBER, 1986

American Political Science Review Vol.80 different.They are indeed peaceful,yet (Schumpeter,1955,p.6).Excluding im- they are also prone to make war,as the perialisms that were mere "catchwords" U.S.and our "freedom fighters"are now and those that were "object-ful"(e.g., doing,not so covertly,against Nicaragua. defensive imperialism),he traces the roots Liberal states have created a separate of objectless imperialism to three sources, peace,as Kant argued they would,and each an atavism.Modern imperialism, have also discovered liberal reasons for according to Schumpeter,resulted from aggression,as he feared they might.I con- the combined impact of a "war machine, clude by arguing that the differences warlike instincts,and export among liberal pacifism,liberal im- monopolism. perialism,and Kant's liberal interna- Once necessary,the war machine later tionalism are not arbitrary but rooted in developed a life of its own and took con- differing conceptions of the citizen and trol of a state's foreign policy:"Created the state by the wars that required it,the machine now created the wars it required" Liberal Pacifism (Schumpeter,1955,p.25).Thus, Schumpeter tells us that the army of an- There is no canonical description of cient Egypt,created to drive the Hyksos liberalism.What we tend to call liberal out of Egypt,took over the state and pur- resembles a family portrait of principles sued militaristic imperialism.Like the and institutions,recognizable by certain later armies of the courts of absolutist characteristics-for example,individual Europe,it fought wars for the sake of freedom,political participation,private glory and booty,for the sake of warriors property,and equality of opportunity- and monarchs-wars gratia warriors. that most liberal states share,although A warlike disposition,elsewhere called none has perfected them all.Joseph "instinctual elements of bloody Schumpeter clearly fits within this family primitivism,"is the natural ideology of a when he considers the international ef- war machine.It also exists independently; fects of capitalism and democracy. the Persians,says Schumpeter(1955,pp Schumpeter's "Sociology of Im- 25-32),were a warrior nation from the perialisms,"published in 1919,made a outset. coherent and sustained argument con- Under modern capitalism,export cerning the pacifying (in the sense of monopolists,the third source of modern nonaggressive)effects of liberal institu- imperialism,push for imperialist expan- tions and principles (Schumpeter,1955; sion as a way to expand their closed see also Doyle,1986,pp.155-59).Unlike markets.The absolute monarchies were some of the earlier liberal theorists who the last clear-cut imperialisms. focused on a single feature such as trade Nineteenth-century imperialisms merely (Montesquieu,1949,vol.1,bk.20,chap. represent the vestiges of the imperialisms 1)or failed to examine critically the created by Louis XIV and Catherine the arguments they were advancing, Great.Thus,the export monopolists are Schumpeter saw the interaction of an atavism of the absolute monarchies, capitalism and democracy as the founda- for they depend completely on the tariffs tion of liberal pacifism,and he tested his imposed by the monarchs and their arguments in a sociology of historical militaristic successors for revenue imperialisms. (Schumpeter,1955,p.82-83).Without He defines imperialism as "an objectless tariffs,monopolies would be eliminated disposition on the part of a state by foreign competition. to unlimited forcible expansion" Modern (nineteenth century）imperi- 1152

American Political Science Review Vol. 80 different. They are indeed peaceful, yet they are also prone to make war, as the U.S. and our "freedom fighters" are now doing, not so covertly, against Nicaragua. Liberal states have created a separate peace, as Kant argued they would, and have also discovered liberal reasons for aggression, as he feared they might. I conclude by arguing that the differences among liberal pacifism, liberal imperialism, and Kant's liberal internationalism are not arbitrary but rooted in differing conceptions of the citizen and the state. Liberal Pacifism There is no canonical description of liberalism. What we tend to call liberal resembles a family portrait of principles and institutions, recognizable by certain characteristics-for example, individual freedom, political participation, private property, and e.quali ty of opportunitythat most liberal states share, although none has perfected them all. Joseph Schumpeter clearly fits within this family when he considers the international effects of capitalism and democracy. Schumpeter's "Sociology of Imperialisms," published in 1919, made a coherent and sustained argument concerning the pacifying (in the sense of nonaggressive) effects of liberal institutions and principles (Schumpeter, 1955; see also Doyle, 1986, pp. 155-59). Unlike some of the earlier liberal theorists who focused on a single feature such as trade (Montesquieu, 1949, vol. 1, bk. 20, chap. 1) or failed to examine critically the arguments they were advancing, Schumpeter saw the interaction of capitalism and democracy as the foundation of liberal pacifism, and he tested his arguments in a sociology of historical imperialisms. He defines imperialism as "an objectless disposition on the part of a state to unlimited forcible expansion" (Schumpeter, 1955, p. 6). Excluding imperialisms that were mere "catchwords" and those that were "object-ful" (e.g., defensive imperialism), he traces the roots of objectless imperialism to three sources, each an atavism. Modern imperialism, according to Schumpeter, resulted from the combined impact of a "war machine," warlike instincts, and export monopolism. Once necessary, the war machine later developed a life of its own and took control of a state's foreign policy: "Created by the wars that required it, the machine now created the wars it required (Schumpeter, 1955, p. 25). Thus, Schumpeter tells us that the army of ancient Egypt, created to drive the Hyksos out of Egypt, took over the state and pursued militaristic imperialism. Like the later armies of the courts of absolutist Europe, it fought wars for the sake of glory and booty, for the sake of warriors and monarchs-wars gratia warriors. A warlike disposition, elsewhere called "instinctual elements of bloody primitivism," is the natural ideology of a war machine. It also exists independently; the Persians, says Schumpeter (1955, pp. 25-32), were a warrior nation from the outset. Under modern capitalism, export monopolists, the third source of modem imperialism, push for imperialist expansion as a way to expand their closed markets. The absolute monarchies were the last clear-cut imperialisms. Nineteenth-century imperialisms merely represent the vestiges of the imperialisms created by Louis XIV and Catherine the Great. Thus, the export monopolists are an atavism of the absolute monarchies, for they depend completely on the tariffs imposed by the monarchs and their militaristic successors for revenue (Schumpeter, 1955, p. 82-83). Without tariffs, monopolies would be eliminated by foreign competition. Modern (nineteenth century) imperi-

1986 Liberalism and World Politics alism,therefore,rests on an atavistic war Schumpeter's explanation for liberal machine,militaristic attitudes left over pacifism is quite simple:Only war profi- from the days of monarchical wars,and teers and military aristocrats gain from export monopolism,which is nothing wars.No democracy would pursue a more than the economic residue of minority interest and tolerate the high monarchical finance.In the modern era, costs of imperialism.When free trade imperialists gratify their private interests. prevails,"no class"gains from forcible From the national perspective,their im- expansion because perialistic wars are objectless. Schumpeter's theme now emerges. foreign raw materials and food stuffs are as Capitalism and democracy are forces for accessible to each nation as though they were in peace.Indeed,they are antithetical to im- its own territory.Where the cultural backward- ness of a region makes normal economic inter- perialism.For Schumpeter,the further course dependent on colonization it does not development of capitalism and democ- matter, assuming free trade,which of the racy means that imperialism will inev- "civilized"nations undertakes the task of coloni- itably disappear.He maintains that zation.(Schumpeter,1955,pp.75-76) capitalism produces an unwarlike disposi- Schumpeter's arguments are difficult to tion;its populace is "democratized,in- evaluate.In partial tests of quasi- dividualized,rationalized"(Schumpeter, Schumpeterian propositions,Michael 1955,p.68).The people's energies are Haas (1974,pp.464-65)discovered a daily absorbed in production.The cluster that associates democracy, disciplines of industry and the market development,and sustained moderniza- train people in "economic rationalism"; tion with peaceful conditions.However, the instability of industrial life M.Small and J.D.Singer (1976)have necessitates calculation.Capitalism also discovered that there is no clearly "individualizes";"subjective oppor- negative correlation between democracy tunities"replace the "immutable factors" and war in the period 1816-1965-the of traditional,hierarchical society.Ra- period that would be central to tional individuals demand democratic Schumpeter's argument (see also governance. Wilkenfeld,1968,Wright,1942,p.841). Democratic capitalism leads to peace. Later in his career,in Capitalism, As evidence,Schumpeter claims that Socialism,and Democracy,Schumpeter, throughout the capitalist world an op- (1950,pp.127-28)acknowledged that position has arisen to "war,expansion, "almost purely bourgeois common- cabinet diplomacy";that contemporary wealths were often aggressive when it capitalism is associated with peace par- seemed to pay-like the Athenian or the ties;and that the industrial worker of Venetian commonwealths."Yet he stuck capitalism is "vigorously anti-imperialist." to his pacifistic guns,restating the view In addition,he points out that the capital- that capitalist democracy "steadily tells ist world has developed means of prevent- ..against the use of military force and ing war,such as the Hague Court and that for peaceful arrangements,even when the the least feudal,most capitalist society- balance of pecuniary advantage is clearly the United States-has demonstrated the on the side of war which,under modern least imperialistic tendencies(Schumpeter circumstances,is not in general very like- 1955,pp.95-96).An example of the lack ly"(Schumpeter,1950,p.128).1 A recent of imperialistic tendencies in the U.S., study by R.J.Rummel (1983)of "liber- Schumpeter thought,was our leaving tarianism"and international violence is over half of Mexico unconquered in the the closest test Schumpeterian pacifism war of1846-48. has received."Free"states(those enjoying 1153

1986 Liberalism and World Politics alism, therefore, rests on an atavistic war machine, militaristic attitudes left over from the days of monarchical wars, and export monopolism, which is nothing more than the economic residue of monarchical finance. In the modern era, imperialists gratify their private interests. From the national perspective, their imperialistic wars are objectless. Schumpeter's theme now emerges. Capitalism and democracy are forces for peace. Indeed, they are antithetical to imperialism. For Schumpeter, the further development of capitalism and democracy means that imperialism will inevitably disappear. He maint-dlns that capitalism produces an unwarlike disposition; its populace is "democratized, individualized, rationalized (Schumpeter, 1955, p. 68). The people's energies are daily absorbed in production. The disciplines of industry and the market train people in "economic rationalism"; the instability of industrial life necessitates calculation. Capitalism also "individualizes"; "subjective opportunities" replace the "immutable factors" of traditional, hierarchical society. Rational individuals demand democratic governance. Democratic capitalism leads to peace. As evidence, Schumpeter claims that throughout the capitalist world an opposition has arisen to "war, expansion, cabinet diplomacy"; that contemporary capitalism is associated with peace parties; and that the industrial worker of capitalism is "vigorously anti-imperialist." In addition, he points out that the capitalist world has developed means of preventing war, such as the Hague Court and that the least feudal, most capitalist societythe United States-has demonstrated the least imperialistic tendencies (Schumpete~ 1955, pp. 95-96). An example of the lack of imperialistic tendencies in the U.S., Schumpeter thought, was our leaving over half of Mexico unconquered in the war of 1846-48. Schumpeter's explanation for liberal pacifism is quite simple: Only war profiteers and military aristocrats gain from wars. No democracy would pursue a minority interest and tolerate the high costs of imperialism. When free trade prevails, "no class" gains from forcible expansion because foreign raw materials and food stuffs are as accessible to each nation as though they were in its own territory. Where the cultural backwardness of a region makes normal economic intercourse dependent on colonization it does not matter, assuming free trade, which of the "civilized" nations undertakes the task of colonization. (Schumpeter, 1955, pp. 75-76) Schumpeter's arguments are difficult to evaluate. In partial tests of quasiSchumpeterian propositions, Michael Haas (1974, pp. 464-65) discovered a cluster that associates democracy, development, and sustained modernization with peaceful conditions. However, M. Small and J. D. Singer (1976) have discovered that there is no clearly negative correlation between democracy and war in the period 1816-1965-the period that would be central to Schumpeter's argument (see also Wilkenfeld, 1968, Wright, 1942, p. 841). Later in his career, in Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Schumpeter, (1950, pp. 127-28) acknowledged that "almost purely bourgeois commonwealths were often aggressive when it seemed to pay-like the Athenian or the Venetian commonwealths." Yet he stuck to his pacifistic guns, restating the view that capitalist democracy "steadily tells . . . against the use of military force and for peaceful arrangements, even when the balance of pecuniary advantage is clearly on the side of war which, under modern circumstances, is not in general very likely" (Schumpeter, 1950, p. 128).l A recent study by R. J. Rummel (1983) of "libertarianism" and international violence is the closest test Schumpeterian pacifism has received. "Free" states (those enjoying

American Political Science Review Vol.80 political and economic freedom)were that ruling makes no difference.He also shown to have considerably less conflict presumes that no one is prepared to take at or above the level of economic sanc- those measures(such as stirring up foreign tions than "nonfree"states.The free quarrels to preserve a domestic ruling states,the partly free states(including the coalition)that enhance one's political democratic socialist countries such as power,despite deterimental effects on Sweden),and the nonfree states ac- mass welfare.Third,like domestic counted for 24%,26%,and 61%,respec- politics,world politics are homogenized. tively,of the international violence Materially monistic and democratically during the period examined. capitalist,all states evolve toward free These effects are impressive but not trade and liberty together.Countries dif- conclusive for the Schumpeterian thesis. ferently constituted seem to disappear The data are limited,in this test,to the from Schumpeter's analysis."Civilized" period 1976 to 1980.It includes,for ex- nations govern "culturally backward" ample,the Russo-Afghan War,the Viet- regions.These assumptions are not shared namese invasion of Cambodia,China's by Machiavelli's theory of liberalism. invasion of Vietnam,and Tanzania's in- vasion of Uganda but just misses the U.S., quasi-covert intervention in Angola Liberal Imperialism (1975)and our not so covert war against Nicaragua (1981-).More importantly,it Machiavelli argues,not only that excludes the cold war period,with its republics are not pacifistic,but that they numerous interventions,and the long are the best form of state for imperial history of colonial wars (the Boer War, expansion.Establishing a republic fit for the Spanish-American War,the Mexican imperial expansion is,moreover,the best Intervention,etc.)that marked the way to guarantee the survival of a state. history of liberal,including democratic Machiavelli's republic is a classical capitalist,states (Doyle,1983b;Chan, mixed republic.It is not a democracy- 1984;Weede,1984). which he thought would quickly degen- The discrepancy between the warlike erate into a tyranny-but is characterized history of liberal states and Schumpeter's by social equality,popular liberty,and pacifistic expectations highlights three ex- political participation(Machiavelli,1950, treme assumptions.First,his "material- bk.1,chap.2,p.112;see also Huliung, istic monism"leaves little room for 1983,chap.2;Mansfield,1970;Pocock, noneconomic objectives,whether es- 1975,pp.198-99:Skinner,1981,chap.3). poused by states or individuals.Neither The consuls serve as"kings,"the senate as glory,nor prestige,nor ideological an aristocracy managing the state,and the justification,nor the pure power of ruling people in the assembly as the source of shapes policy.These nonmaterial goals strength. leave little room for positive-sum gains, Liberty results from "disunion"-the such as the comparative advantages of competition and necessity for com- trade.Second,and relatedly,the same is promise required by the division of true for his states.The political life of powers among senate,consuls,and individuals seems to have been homogen- tribunes (the last representing the com- ized at the same time as the individuals mon people).Liberty also results from the were "rationalized,individualized,and popular veto.The powerful few threaten democratized."Citizens-capitalists and the rest with tyranny,Machiavelli says, workers,rural and urban-seek material because they seek to dominate.The mass welfare.Schumpeter seems to presume demands not to be dominated,and their 1154

American Political Science Review Vol. 80 political and economic freedom) were shown to have considerably less conflict at or above the level of economic sanctions than "nonfree" states. The free states, the partly free states (including the democratic socialist countries such as Sweden), and the nonfree states accounted for 24%, 26%, and 61 %, respectively, of the international violence during the period examined. These effects are impressive but not conclusive for the Schumpeterian thesis. The data are limited, in this test, to the period 1976 to 1980. It includes, for example, the Russo-Afghan War, the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, China's invasion of Vietnam, and Tanzania's invasion of Uganda but just misses the U.S., quasi-covert intervention in Angola (1975) and our not so covert war against Nicaragua (1981-). More importantly, it excludes the cold war period, with its numerous interventions, and the long history of colonial wars (the Boer War, the Spanish-American War, the Mexican Intervention, etc.) that marked the history of liberal, including democratic capitalist, states (Doyle, 1983b; Chan, 1984; Weede, 1984). The discrepancy between the warlike history of liberal states and Schumpeter's pacifistic expectations highlights three extreme assumptions. First, his "materialistic monism" leaves little room for noneconomic objectives, whether espoused by states or individuals. Neither glory, nor prestige, nor ideological justification, nor the pure power of ruling shapes policy. These nonmaterial goals leave little room for positive-sum gains, such as the comparative advantages of trade. Second, and relatedly, the same is true for his states. The political life of individuals seems to have been homogenized at the same time as the individuals were "rationalized, individualized, and democratized." Citizens-capitalists and workers, rural and urban-seek material welfare. Schumpeter seems to presume that ruling makes no difference. He also presumes That no one is prepared to take those measures (such as stirring up foreign quarrels to preserve a domestic ruling coalition) that enhance one's volitical power, despite deterimental effhcts on mass welfare. Third, like domestic politics, world politics are homogenized. Materiallv monistic and democraticallv capitalist, all states evolve toward free trade and liberty together. Countries differently constituted seem to disappear from Schumpeter's analysis. "Civilized nations govern "culturally backward" regions.These assumptions are not shared by Machiavelli's theory of liberalism. Liberal Imperialism Machiavelli argues, not only that republics are not pacifistic, but that they are the best form of state for imperial expansion. Establishing a republic fit for imperial expansion is, moreover, the best way to guarantee the survival of a state. Machiavelli's republic is a classical mixed republic. It is not a democracywhich he thought would quickly degenerate into a tyranny-but is characterized by social equality, popular liberty, and political participation (Machiavelli, 1950, bk. 1, chap. 2, p. 112; see also Huliung, 1983, chap. 2; Mansfield, 1970; Pocock, 1975, pp. 198-99; Skinner, 1981, chap. 3). The consuls serve as "kings," the senate as an aristocracy managing the state, and the people in the assembly as the source of strength. Liberty results from "disunionw-the competition and necessity for compromise required by the division of powers among senate, consuls, and tribunes (the last representing the common people). Liberty also results from the popular veto. The powerful few threaten the rest with tyranny, Machiavelli says, because they seek to dominate. The mass demands not to be dominated, and their

点击进入文档下载页（PDF格式）

共23页，可试读8页，点击继续阅读 ↓↓

您可能感兴趣的文档

点击购买下载（PDF）

下载及服务说明

购买前请先查看本文档预览页，确认内容后再进行支付；
如遇文件无法下载、无法访问或其它任何问题，可发送电子邮件反馈，核实后将进行文件补发或退款等其它相关操作；
邮箱：

文档浏览记录