International Relations. A self-Study Guide to Theory

centrality of state-society relations to world politics (Moravcsik 1997: 515). 

---

162 
State-society relations are the relationships of states to the domestic and 
transnational social context in which they are embedded. The domestic and 
transnational social context is assumed to have an impact on the behavior of a 
state in international politics: state preferences are derived from domestic and 
transnational social pressure and demands (Moravcsik 2008: 236). Those 
demands in turn influence the “social purposes” that underlie state prefer-
ences (Moravcsik 1997: 516). 
In attempting to reformulate liberal theory as a social scientific theory, 
this basic liberal insight is first “translated” into premises in order to ground 
liberal theory in a set of social scientific assumptions. There are three “posi-
tive” assumptions which concern the nature of social actors, the state, and 
the international system. These assumptions give rise to the arguments, ex-
planations and predictions of a new liberal theory (Moravcsik 1997: 514).
Before exploring these arguments and explanations in detail in Step 2, let 
us first begin with the assumptions underlying new liberal theory. 
1.1.
Assumptions about social actors 
The first assumption of new liberal theory is the primacy of societal actors: 
individuals and groups of individuals are assumed to be the most important 
actors in international politics (Moravcsik 1997: 516-517; 2008: 236-237). 
This ontological individualist assumption is based on the pluralist conception 
that society is characterized by competing interests, conflicting values and 
variations in influence, i.e. a plurality of public actors, private actors and civil 
society. Society is understood as a collection of individuals and groups who 
act rationally in their pursuit of material and ideal welfare. Individuals define 
their interests independently of politics and then try to force their interests on 
the political agenda. Consequently, in the analysis, the differing interests and 
demands of individuals and societal groups are treated as though they come 
before politics. In this way, new liberalism gives a bottom-up-view of inter-
national politics: a “pluralist” view of individuals and groups that define ma-
terial and ideational goals and attempt to realize them at the political level 
(AFTER having defined their material and ideational interests).
But where do the material and ideational goals of social actors arise? The 
“source” of the social interests relevant to the study of international politics is 
globalization. Globalization – defined economically, socially and culturally – 
has an impact on the interests and preferences of social actors. Individuals and 
groups have demands with regard to international affairs. Such demands could 
be a different arrangement of the economic, cultural, social and political “or-

---

163 
der”, an order that is in the social actor’s best interests. In liberal theory, the 
demands of social actors are treated as variables, which can change owing to 
the fact that globalization produces “winners” and “losers”. Globalization has 
consequences in terms of distributional effects on societies. Competing or con-
flicting societal demands on a state’s “management of globalization” can there-
fore be assumed. Thus domestic actors (individuals and groups) aim to influ-
ence the foreign policy of their states und so shape outcomes in international 
politics in a way that best matches their interests and goals. These actors have 
different goals and the power to force their goals onto the political agenda. 
For the liberal explanation, this means that domestic actors are the most 
important factors in explaining foreign policy and the behavior of states in in-
ternational politics. Which actors prevail and are instrumental in determining 
foreign policy and with which goals, are dependent on a state’s internal