| 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.
