International Relations. A self-Study Guide to Theory

Assumptions of new liberal theory at a glance 
•
Social actors (individuals and groups of individuals) are the most im-
portant actors in international politics. 
•
Political outcomes in international politics can only be explained by 
looking “inside” the state: domestic actors, structures and processes 
(state-society relations). 
•
States are not unitary actors: states act as “representative institutions”. 
State preferences are derived from sub-systemic structures and social in-
terests. 
•
State actions present the preferences of the most powerful social actors 
capable of shaping the political agenda to the outside. 
•
Policy interdependence in the international system: outcomes in interna-
tional politics depend on the configuration of interdependent state pref-
erences.

---

167 
Step 2: 
New liberalism as a general theoretical approach to IR 
2.1. The new liberal explanation and prediction of international 
politics 
At the core of new liberal theory lies the issue of finding general explanations 
for international cooperation, conflict and war as systemic phenomena in in-
ternational politics. Moravcsik aims to formulate a general theory of IR that 
applies equally to liberal and non-liberal states, economic and security poli-
tics, conflict and non-conflictual situations, as well as to the behavior of indi-
vidual states (foreign policy) and “aggregations” of states (international rela-
tions). New liberalism therefore competes with neoinstitutionalist and neore-
alist explanations as a general theory of IR (Moravcsik 1997: 515-516). 
Based on the assumed primacy of societal actors, new liberal theory is inter-
ested in the conditions under which the behavior of self-interested social ac-
tors will bring about cooperation or conflict in international politics. Accord-
ing to the new liberal explanation, the cause of these outcomes in interna-
tional politics is variation in state preferences (independent variable). The 
dependent variable is the outcome in international politics: i.e. conflict or co-
operation? New liberal theory therefore provides a unicausal explanation 
based on variation in state preferences. Accordingly, peace and international 
cooperation thus depend on the constellation of state preferences. These con-
stellations are brought about by interacting states whose internal structures 
produce cooperative foreign policy. Such states comply with agreed-upon 
rules without requiring control or sanctions by an international institution 
(neoinstitutionalism) or a hegemon (neorealism). 
What matters in the new liberal explanation is the variation in the substan-
tive content of foreign policy across issues, regions or international orders 
(Moravcsik 2008: 246). The “substantive content” could be economic inter-
ests, environmental protection, human rights or different goals and institution-
al designs of international regimes and organizations. By focusing on the 
“content” of foreign policy, it is even possible to account for “altruistic” goals 
in international politics. This contrasts with neoinstitutionalist theory, which 
does not specify actors’ exact goals but simply assumes that rational actors 
have an interest in absolute gains. New liberal theory, however, is not only in-
terested in the fact THAT states cooperate by constructing international re-
gimes to cope with climate change, but also in HOW states purse a policy of 
climate change, for example, through state prohibitions or tradable emission 
permits. It is here that the interests of social actors matter; the answer to the 

---

168 
“how”-question depends on the dominant internal policy preferences (eco-
nomic actors, environmental NGOs, etc.). Such an approach can explain why 
OECD countries have protectionist agricultural trade policy, but also an 
“open” industrial trade policy (Moravcsik 2008: 246). According to Moravc-
sik, “[T]he stronger the aggregate benefit from social interactions across bor-
ders, the greater the demand to engage in such interactions” (Moravcsik 2008: 
236). For this reason, corporations lobby for (or against) trade liberalization – 
depending on how much they can gain (or lose) by opening an economy to the 
outside. Helen Milner (1988) has contributed some important work on these 
and similar political-economic issues in international trade. 
In short, from the new liberal perspective, the fundamental problems of 
international anarchy must be addressed by focusing an analysis on factors 
inside the state. It is not anarchy, as a structural condition in the international 
system, that produces the problems of international politics, but rather the 
states and societies that constitute this anarchical system and which must in-
teract in international politics. New liberal theory attempts to explain even 
long-term historical change in world politics by creating a causal link be-
tween long-term economic, political and social transformations and state be-
havior (Moravcsik 2008: 247). New liberal analysis should be able to predict 
war and peace, as well as such political-economic outcomes as trade liberali-
zation and trade protection.