Concept |
Keohane & Nye (Liberal View) |
Barkin’s Realist Critique |
Key Implications |
|---|---|---|---|
Nature of Power |
Diffused; economic interdependence reduces conflict. |
Power remains hierarchical; military/structural dominance still dictates outcomes. |
Interdependence is asymmetric—strong states exploit weaker ones. |
Complex Interdependence |
Non-state actors (NGOs, MNCs) dilute state power. |
States retain ultimate control; NGOs/MNCs serve state interests. |
Globalization reinforces state power (e.g., U.S. sanctions via SWIFT). |
Institutions |
Promote cooperation and reduce anarchy. |
Institutions reflect power imbalances (e.g., IMF/WB favor the West). |
Rules-based order = power-based order; institutions entrench inequality. |
Economic Interdependence |
Trade/connectivity prevents war. |
Economic ties can be weaponized (e.g., energy blackmail, sanctions). |
Interdependence creates vulnerabilities for weaker states. |
Transnational Actors |
Reduce state sovereignty. |
States co-opt or suppress transnational actors to maintain control. |
NGOs/MNCs are tools of state power (e.g., Google-US govt ties). |
Core Argument of Barkin
-
“Liberal interdependence” masks realist power dynamics: Economic ties don’t replace coercion; they become new tools for it.
-
Institutions aren’t neutral: They codify Western dominance (e.g., UN Security Council veto power).
-
Globalization ≠ peace: Interdependence lets powerful states exploit dependent ones (e.g., debt traps).
Example
-
China’s Belt & Road Initiative: Framed as “win-win” interdependence, but Barkin would argue it’s debt imperialism to expand state power.
