Blog Post 1 - Thomas Sullivan - Realism vs. Liberalism in the Bay Game

When discussing the core beliefs of realist and liberalist theories, it is difficult not to notice other instances in which they may be applied outside the realm of international relations. One outlet to which these theories may be applied is that of another class in which I am enrolled this semester AREC200, or “The Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem: Intersection of Science, Economics and Policy.” This course deals heavily with the importance of preserving the Chesapeake and restoring it to as healthy a state as possible. Through the use of an online simulator game students are able to assume the role of a worker in the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. By assessing the roles that we have been assigned in AREC200, there not only stands the possibility to explain the theories of liberalism and realism in a narrower context, but also as to why liberalism is a more accurate theory to describe international relations.

The point of this simulator is to teach students how certain choices impact the health of the bay. However, if the different roles are viewed as states, the game can serve as an example of the ways realism and liberalism depict IR. Realist theory dictates that due to anarchy between states, the states must resort to self-help. When acting out of their own self interests the actors, in this instance watermen, farmers, etc. are going to act in a way to maximize their own profits. They will choose high yield, low cost farming practices with detrimental effects on the health of the bay. This is the most desirable option as it reaps the highest profit, or in terms of international relations, stands to allow for the greatest accumulation of power.

However, one key factor that realist theory fails to recognize is the importance of other actors, primarily institutions. In the realm of the bay game there are additional roles of regulators for various industries. The crop regulator acts as an institution of sorts by moderating farming practices in order to minimize the detrimental effects on the bay. This is done through incentivizing the farmers to make ecofriendly choices. Realist theory would suggest that the farmers ignore the regulator as it may cause a loss of profit, or power. However, my classmates have proven multiple times that the regulators have an important say in how they act.  These regulators also act as a way of mitigating the anarchy between states. With regulations and incentives put into place it can establish trust between actors not to cheat each other out of a profit or out of a healthy ecosystem by choosing a cheap, detrimental farming practice.

When looking at the bay game in terms of liberalist theory, it is clear that it is a more accurate manner of describing the relations between actors. For example, liberalist theory says that states will act rationally. This is evident in the realm of the bay game as no one wants the bay to remain unhealthy. Rational actors would make choices that improve the health of the bay, while at the same time giving credence to incentives set down by the regulators, or institutions. By doing so they better themselves and the environment.   

After looking at liberalist and realist theories in a small sense, they can more easily be understood in the larger sense of international relations. It can be seen that actors will choose to behave along the lines of liberalist theory on a small scale, so we can infer that they will also do so on a large scale. Realist theory does not accurately describe the way states act in the realm of the bay game, demonstrating that liberalism is the more appropriate of the two to describe relations between states.