International Relations. A self-Study Guide to Theory

In brief: The new liberal “bottom-up”-model of explanation
International politics 
(policy interdependence) 
Government: Foreign Policy 
State 
(as a representative institution) 
Preferences 
(globalization) 
Domestic actors 
(individual actors/interest groups/civil society etc.) 

---

169 
Self-study (1)
Now read Moravcsik 1997 and Matthew/Zacher 1995. Their texts give an 
overview of different strands of liberal theory. What distinguishes the dif-
ferent variants of new liberal theory? Draw the line of causality for each 
variant of new liberal explanation: show the dependent variable, the inde-
pendent variable and the causal relationship between the two.
2.2. Levels-of analysis in new liberalism: The logic of two-level-
games 
New liberal theory goes beyond “traditional” liberal theory in that it extends 
analysis beyond the sub-systemic state level towards the systemic level of the 
international system. Whereas “traditional” liberalism is a sub-systemic theory, 
new liberalism provides a step-by-step explanation in that it refers first to the 
state and then to the system level. The explanation is systemic (second step) in 
the sense of Waltz’s neorealist theory because the constellation, or “distribu-
tion”, of state preferences – comparable to the distribution of capabilities in ne-
orealism – is perceived as an “attribute” of the international system (Moravcsik 
2008: 248; as discussed in Step 1.3). This “distribution” cannot be controlled 
by the state. Constraints are imposed on a state’s behavior by the preferences of 
other states (via “policy interdependence”). Similar to neorealist theory, the 
theory employs a “configuration” to explain state behavior, i.e. how states stand 
in relation to each other (Moravcsik 2008: 248). However, state preferences 
have their sources in domestic society. According to Moravcsik, the “manage-
ment of globalization” (Moravcsik 2008: 249) lies at the core of foreign policy 
and international politics. “Managing globalization” means managing the re-
sults of interactions between societies. Moravcsik views this management as 
being a “systemic quality” (Moravcsik 2008: 249). 
Therefore, in new liberalism, the concept of “levels of analysis” does not 
make sense in the study of international politics (Moravcsik 2008: 249). In 
fact, as there is no boundary between domestic and systemic levels of analy-
sis in new liberal theory, international negotiations take place under both sub-
systemic and systemic constraints. They must therefore be analyzed as “two-
level games” (Putnam 1988): governments must bargain with each other 
AND with their respective domestic societal actors.

---

170