| I will argue that there has been a transformation in the interactions and properties of contemporary great powers, with profound implications for both the theory and practice of international relations. After making a quantitative and qualitative case for large-scale change, I will suggest that none of the three major paradigms---Realism, Liberalism, and Constructivism---are able to offer a compelling explanation for the break with the past that has taken place. While Liberalism and Constructivism do not look towards the right independent variables, Realism bases its explanation on assumptions that are anachronistic in the contemporary world. Drawing on Keynes's critique of classical economics, I will suggest that Realism is in fact only a special case of a much broader way of understanding the connection between structural forces and great power politics, one that can account for dramatic change as well as continuity. I will offer a general theory that challenges the core ideas of Realism (and to a significant extent the other two paradigms as well), one that shows that anarchy is consistent with a wide range of outcomes, behaviors, and characteristics of states. I will use this theory to explain the broad contours of great power politics from 1648 until present. Finally, I will suggest that this analysis has important repercussions in the policy world, as structural forces impel states to cooperate with each other if they wish to survive. |
