Interests

So, while attempting to avoid rereading Max Weber to find out what I missed (I've had to read too many Germans recently. My head is full of Clausewitz for another class outside of this curriculum.), I started to ponder the ideas and interests question. In an attempt to make some real world connections, I started to think about how policy, the actual manifestations of our theoretical discussions, is created.

Naturally, the way policy is created differs between states. There are also differences over time. For this post I want to look at modern democracies. I would suggest that the policy development cycle in North Korea could be summed up by what kind of day Kim Jong-un is having. The thoughts of your average North Korean peasant (since they are surely not treated as citizens) probably don't have much effect on policy.

However, a modern democracy is supposed to be derived from the people. How accurately this happens is an open question. However, I think I can point to some situations where policy was clearly influenced by ideas within the population and not some hard calculation of interests.

The one I will look at now is the divestment movement regarding South Africa during Apartheid. Prior to the divestment movement, the US had ties with South Africa in the context of the Cold War. I argue that this was classic interest based policy. However, during the 1980s the divestment movement gained popularity throughout the US, and culminated with the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986. Interestingly enough, the act was vetoed by Reagan but overriden by Congress.

Although claims can be made that by imposing sanctions against South Africa the US was in fact furthering its interests because it was maintaining the narrative that the US supports freedom and democracy world wide, as opposed to the Soviet Union. However, I believe that the Reagan veto represents the 'interest' side and the override represented the 'ideas' side.

Rational Actors

The readings for this week brought up a great point that I think deserves a lot of attention. This point is that we often consider the entities we study to be rational actors. This is often an assumption that is used in economics, and I assume in many other social sciences as well.

In economics we assume that consumers and producers will act rationally to maximize their utility. Firms will do whatever they can to maximize their profits. Individuals will do the same. And they behave in a way that is rational and knowable. But what happens when that isn't the case? Look at the stock market, and tell me that the valuation of stocks are always based purely on rational reasoning and not on irrational considerations.

Similarly, the idea of perfect information is a common assumption. In economics, we assume that actors have perfect information and are able to act on it. However, this is rarely the case. An everyday example is how one shops for groceries. If you knew all the time exactly how much each good cost at every store, you would be able to maximize your utility by buying your desired goods at the lowest cost. But you don't know exactly how much things cost before you go to the store, so you can't make the 'rational' choice.

So, many actors in the international realm, from states down to individuals, are often irrational actors that do not have perfect information. This seems axiomatic, however keeping this in mind when looking at why actors take the measures they do is important.