Realist economic nationalist policies or multilateralism, which is the best way forward? Thomas Mun the godfather of mercantilism, argued that plenty was trade and wealth. Frederich List, the initiating voice behind economic nationalism deemed production and national security as power as part of economic nationalism. There is tension between plenty in terms of wealth and trade balance and power in terms of national security, but these definitions offer a way to compare economic nationalism and multilateralism. Multilateralism prioritizes plenty over power by seeking to lift all boats and increase wealth for all nations, primarily by reducing tariffs. Nations working together under institutions with shared norms, rules, and principles allow for power through collective security. Realism, although not traditionally an economic theory, prioritizes national security as power. Economic nationalists see domestic production as national security and assure this priority through tariffs. Using historical perspectives and theories, multilateralist policies, although not perfect, are superior to economic nationalist policies at increasing both power and plenty.
In his 1995 critique of multilateralism, “The False Promise of Institutions”, John Mearsheimer writes that multilateralism has a minimal effect on state behavior. Institutions offer a set of rules to prescribe behavior, and Mearsheimer argues that states can choose to follow those rules or not. Realism argues that states will behave based on five assumptions: the international system is anarchic, states possess offensive military capacity, states are never certain of the intentions of others, states will prioritize survival, and will think strategically. The rules that constrain states in multilateralism still account for realist self-interest in terms of both security and economy. Iterated behaviors coordinated through institutions can reduce realist concerns over cheating and increase trust by showing consistent behavior in favor of improving plenty. Collective security is power enabled by multilateralism in the form of shared rules and treaty relationships. Collective security is also counter to Mearsheimer’s argument that institutions have minimal effect. Collective security is anti-realist because it moves beyond self-help. While realism views nations as aggressors trying to surpass others at the top of the power pyramid, multilateralism provides opportunities to build a sense of responsibility for the larger global community. Collective security is power in a multilateral world that cannot be replicated by economic nationalist policies which block cooperation. Increasing tariffs to support domestic production may increase power and plenty in the short run, but in the long run multilateralism will enable both.
John Ruggie’s 1992 “Multilateralism: The Anatomy of an Institution”, uses historical examples to describe successful collective security in terms of institutions that also provide plenty. He described the qualitative dimension of norms and institutions by exploring historical practices. Ruggie illustrates how NATO, following the fall of the Soviet Union, used norms and institutions to continue building cooperation between nations in the absence of a realist bad actor. Multilateralism increases plenty and improves power simultaneously. The international regime was based on American hegemony, enabled by the permissive domestic environment. America did not always act in its realist self-interest and instead prioritized cooperation to improve plenty. Institutions like the World Trade Organization, with its most favored nation status, established clear rules for property rights and developed structural conditions that impact actor behavior. These are examples of multilateralism countering the realist assumptions about not knowing another nation’s intentions and impacting state behavior to increase plenty over increasing their own power.
John Ikenberry uses more historical examples to describe successful multilateralism. Following WWII, Britain and America worked together to develop a Keynesian economic system that balanced laissez-faire and interventionist policies. Realists would prioritize their own interests versus embracing a system that was multilateral in character, and that is not what happened. Following both the Great Depression and the Second World War, countries realized that they could not cope with mass unemployment and significant security threats alone. These post-war agreements enabled domestic production, increasing List’s form of plenty. Multilateralism assisted cooperation to prevent significant tragedies in both security and trade, thus increasing both power and plenty
While John Mearsheimer argued that institutions cannot overcome realist assumptions to change state behavior, Ruggie and Ikenberry effectively use historical examples to show the benefits of multilateralism. This empirical claim does not diminish the value of realist theories, but it supports the argument that multilateralist cooperation will bring more overall gains than economic nationalist policies. Multilateralism continues to change and develop while consistently improving power and plenty in ways that realist economic nationalism policies cannot.
Alexandra Gerbracht continues her 22-year career in the Marine Corps as a combat engineer, planner, and logistician. She has studied political science, security studies, and international relations at the University of Wisconsin-Madison; George Washington University; Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto, Japan; and Marine Corps University as both a student, instructor, and curriculum developer. Now several years into her Ph.D. journey, Lexi’s research focuses on military cooperation and civil-military control in democratizing nations.
Photo can be found here.
