Читать книгу The Political Economy of the BRICS Countries - Группа авторов - Страница 14

International relations theory has for long tried to explain differences in state behavior within the international political system. The attempt has been to identify factors that would explain differences in the behavior of states.

Three approaches have dominated such analysis. The first is Innenpolitik which seeks to explain state behavior as being affected by domestic political ideology as well as domestic economic and social interest groups (Zakaria, 1992). This approach, for example, suggests that democracies will not go to war with each other because democratic states are primarily interested in peace and stability (Ray, 1998). However, the major criticism of this approach has been that it does not explain why countries with similar domestic systems behave differently abroad (Rose, 1998: 148).

The second analytical approach, neo-realism, postulates that international relations is an ‘autonomous realm’ where states leverage their capabilities to seek greater recognition and influence within the international system (Koslowski and Kratochwil, 1994). This approach does not concern itself with domestic politics in these countries or its impact on their domestic stability. Neo-realists argue that in an international system that is anarchic, states make choices in terms of their international behavior based on their belief that they can survive only if they follow patterns of behavior set by existing major powers. The limitations of this approach was most evident in neo-realist analyses of the Soviet Union’s behavior before its collapse in 1991 which failed to take into account the impact of domestic economic decline and could not foresee its longer term implications for Soviet influence abroad and also global power politics (Wohlforth, 2001).

The third approach, neo-classical realism, while accepting that emerging states do try to imitate existing great powers to increase their influence in world affairs also takes into account domestic factors which might constrain emerging powers in their ability to achieve their goals (Ziegler, 2014: 592–593). Rather than see state behavior either as a function of domestic politics, or a single-minded pursuit of greater international influence, neo-classical realists see state behavior as being affected by relative changes in power. With increasing relative power comes a desire to gain more influence internationally. When relative power decreases, the desire for greater international influence is concomitantly reduced (Rose, 1998: 151–152). This implies that any decline in relative power, caused by domestic factors, could seriously undermine a states’ ability to seek greater power and influence abroad.

Most studies of the emergence BRICS have focused on a neo-realist approach to understanding their motivations in joining hands to gain for themselves a more influential role in international affairs. Seen from this perspective, the attempt by the BRICS countries to bring about changes in the international system is based on their belief that their economic strength vis-à-vis the G7 had increased since the 2008 financial crisis and therefore necessities their recognition as major powers in the international system through structural reform of existing international institutions — the UN, the IMF and the World Bank (Stuenkel, 2014; Hou, 2014).

However, it is also apparent that BRICS countries have not been very successful in molding the direction of international debate on reform of international political institutions in a manner that is favorable to them. Reform of the UN continues to remain stalled, the reform of the IMFs quota system still does not adequately reflect current realities in terms of economic strength, and the Doha Round of Trade negotiations at the WTO remain deadlocked with differences between developed and developing countries over the future direction of trade reform. Domestic problems such as inequality, corruption, lack of skills, and environmental issues mean that the BRICS countries seem destined to focus more on internal problems rather than on cohesive action abroad. In the words of one analyst, BRICS seems more of ‘marriage of convenience’ than a lasting relationship (Kralikova, 2014).

Seen from this perspective, the path to economic growth chosen by the five BRICS countries and the impact these choices have on internal stability and regime legitimacy will determine the ability of the BRICS bloc to exert enough influence internationally to bring about significant changes in the international system.