Neoliberal Institutionalism

A theoretical framework that I think gives an alternative possibility to address the migrant crisis is neoliberal institutionalism. In neoliberal institutionalism states from international institutions to forge and build cooperation to achieve absolute gains. The process of cooperation on a single-issue area will lead to cooperation in other areas and create a spillover effect that helps all involved. In the context of the refugee crisis a neoliberal institutionalism would look to create and work through an international organization to bring an end to the crisis. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees could be used as an example of a current international institution trying to solve the problem through neoliberal institutionalist …show more content…
I typically find realism to be the most useful of the three major international relations general theories. However, I disagree with the notion that absolute gains do not exist. I agree that relative gains are geopolitically important than absolute gains, but they are still nonetheless both present. To understand absolute gains; look at the progress humanity has made collectively over the past one hundred years. There are far more people, as a percentage of the world’s population, today enjoying a decent quality of life in comparison to one-hundred years ago. The world is not a zero-sum game. Additionally, the inability to look inside the black box is a drawback for realism. The current Syrian Civil War is an example of why you must look inside the black box. If Sunni rebels backed by the United States and Saudi Arabia seized control of Syria than the self-interests of Syria would be fundamentally different than if Bashar-al-Assad stayed in power. The geopolitical behavior of Syria would change due to a change in leadership. Realists fail to comprehend this internal factors importance. The refugee crisis would also change substantially if roles were reversed. More Assad supporting Syrian would potentially be forced to become refugees. These refugees may be more inclined to go to Iran rather than Turkey. This would kick the geopolitical football out of the Western sphere and into the Russian sphere in regards to Syrian migration. Finally, realism failed in …show more content…
I think constructivism is a relatively useless theory, because it is a relative hodge-podge of incomplete information. Constructivism has roots in sociology and is based on the importance of shared ideas as motivating forces in global politics. I do not disagree that ideas are important. Likewise, I think liberalism and realism fail to use the power of ideas. However, it is the next step that is troubling. I find it difficult for a policymaker to use constructivism, because it is difficult to identify the motivating forces behind an identity or idea. It is difficult to identify an idea in the minds of other people. Additionally, after you identify a set of shared ideas in a nation it is hard to distinguish which ideas are relevant and which are not. For example, during the Cold War you could identify shared identities that American and Russians had. A common narrative is that Capitalism trumped Communism to end the Cold War, but if the West was non-democratic would the Soviet Union still have dissolved? Or did democracy play a bigger role? Or where the Soviets ready for the change on their own without the west? It is difficult to answer, because there are numerous potential social factors that could have ended the Cold War that it is difficult to identify which combination of shared values prevailed. The point is when you take a broad look at shared ideas it becomes difficult to decide which level to evaluate a geopolitical issue. In my