Session 6: Realist-Liberalism as a "mixed economy model" of politics.
We have seen in our previous reading, the one by Carr, for session 5 how Carr presents the advantages and drawbacks of both idealism/utopia, from pages 87-88, and realism, under the heading of "The Limitations of Realism" and then in the end he suggests that the political theories should contain the elements of both idealism and realism on page 93. Then this guy, named John Hertz, comes along and carries on the discussion from where Carr has left. Hertz too acknowledges that yes there are consequences for being either too idealist or realist. What he proposes is a third theory, which he calls it Realist-Liberalism, that combines the elements of both realism and idealism/utopia. What I felt after reading both Carr and him is basically Carr admits at the end of his article that one evidently reaches the conclusion of combining both the elements of utopia and realism in order to make a sound political theory and Hertz adds a cherry on top of the cake by naming that particular theory as Realist-Liberalism.
The term Realist indicates that the policy must use the factual insights of Realism as its basis and the term Liberalism suggests the ideals which would act as, in Hertz words, "the guiding stars of such an attitude."
I found this concept interesting because this is exactly what the economists did while arguing over the best economic model that would use the scarce resources efficiently to meet the unlimited wants and they came up with a Mixed economy model that comprises the elements of both Free market economy and Planned economy. The basic purpose of Mixed economy was to eliminate the drawbacks of both the Free market economy, like for instance increased external or social costs and non provision of public goods, and Planned economy, like for instance poor quality products and most of the wants not being met due to planning, How can the Mixed economy do it? Simply by eliminating all the drawbacks of Free market economy by the advantages of Planned economy and the disadvantages of Planned economy by Free market economy. Same is the case with Realist-Liberalism. The element of Realism will try to deal with all the criticisms of idealism and vice-versa. Therefore, I give credit to Hertz for coming up with a theory which would satisfy both the groups of politics and which would hope to design good schemes and political strategies. .
I find author's comparison of the Realism-Liberalism debate with that of Mixed economy quite interesting. The comparison implies that there are no absolute particular ways of defining the meaning of the reality. Rather, the reality is too complex that the solution to problems are often found in the connection of various ideas and theories.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading the comparison you drew between realism-liberalism and the mixed economy.
ReplyDeleteIt makes me think of the notion of 'balance.'
Although there are a great deal of comparisons available, one- slightly off topic- comparison could also be the economics & politics degree offered at LUMS. For a lot of people- including myself- economics and politics is THE option to go for as one hopes that such a major would provide the best balance between econ and pol and more than that, will allow us to get the best of both worlds, so to speak.
In the same manner, like you stated; the author conjoins realism and liberalism because he believes that such a mixture will allow states to reap the benefits of both, while possibly diminishing their disadvantages as well.
Excellent analogy tying the "mixed-economy" approach with how Hertz attempts to mash up idealism with realism. Often times, theorists try to combine two approaches in an attempt to split the difference and come up with an approach that will amenable to all perspectives. But unlike the mixed-economy approach, realist liberalism has failed the test of time.
ReplyDeleteLyla, I like your comparison to Econ/Pol at LUMS. Good job!