Liberal Order «Free Riders»: International Development Agenda and the Symbolic Policies of the Rising Powers

The West is concerned over the crisis of the liberal world order attributing it to the conduct of emerging powers, such as China, India and Russia. Are its concerns legitimate? Drawing on social identity theory, the authors analyze the emerging powers’ stances on international development through the lens of status dynamics. In particular, three issue areas are investigated: the debate over the UN development agenda, which has revealed differences between Western and non-Western approaches, the changes in the membership of donor and recipient groups over the last decade and the discourse of emerging countries concerning science and technology, which betrays their self-image of a “developed” or “laggard” state.

The key finding of the paper is that the crisis of the liberal world order as a set of institutions created by the US-led countries after WWII manifests itself in the distorting symbolic exchange between developed and developing countries. The emerging states are unwilling to recognize the authority of the West and its leadership in setting the direction of global development. Meanwhile, they are trying to gain the status of development front-runners using their own foreign aid programs and science and technology development strategies. However, the rising states are not uniform and consistent in posing a symbolic challenge to the liberal order – while the Russia is striving for a “developed non-western country” status (thereby copying the USSR’s image), India and China, though to different degrees, are positioning themselves both as developed industrial states and as developing countries which receive aid packages from richer members of the international community. What leads to the distortions in this symbolic exchange is the desire of some emerging powers to use the resources of the West and reap the benefits of the world order created by it while denying it a high status. Thus, a classic economic “free-rider problem” arises in international relations: while benefiting from the liberal order created by the West, the rising states do not recognize the status it ascribes itself ignoring the symbolic hierarchy which, as viewed by western countries, underlies this order.

The authors declare the absence of conflict of interest.

1. Acharya A. 2017. After liberal hegemony: The advent of a multiplex world order. Ethics & international affairs. Vol. 31, No. 3. Pp. 271-285.

2. Barma N., Ratner E., Weber S. 2013. The mythical liberal order. The National Interest. No. 124. Pp. 56-67.

3. Beeson M., Zeng J. 2018. The BRICS and global governance: China’s contradictory role. Third World Quarterly. Vol. 39, No. 10. Pp. 1962-1978.

4. Biscop S. 2016. The European Union and emerging powers in the 21st century: how Europe can shape a new global order. Routledge.

5. De Graaff N., Van Apeldoorn B. 2018. US–China relations and the liberal world order: contending elites, colliding visions? International affairs. Vol. 94, no. 1. Pp. 113-131.

6. Deudney D., Ikenberry G.J. 2009. The Myth of the Autocratic Revival-Why Liberal Democracy Will Prevail. Foreign Affairs. Vol. 88, No. 1. Pp. 77-93.

7. Dombrowski P., Reich S. 2017. Does Donald Trump have a grand strategy? International Affairs. Vol. 93, No. 5. Pp. 1013-1037.

8. Drezner D. W. 2007. The new new world order. Foreign Affairs. Vol. 86, No. 2. Pp. 34-46.

9. Duncombe C., Dunne T. 2018. After liberal world order. International Affairs. Vol. 94, No. 1. Pp. 25-42.

10. Flockhart T. et al. 2014. Liberal order in a post-western world. Washington, DC: Transatlantic Academy.

11. Hameiri S., Jones L. 2018. China challenges global governance? Chinese international development finance and the AIIB. International Affairs. Vol. 94, no. 3. Pp. 573-593.

12. Huang Y. 2010. Debating China's economic growth: The Beijing consensus or the Washington consensus. Academy of Management Perspectives. Vol. 24, No. 2. Pp. 31-47.

13. Ikenberry G.J. 2009. Liberal internationalism 3.0: America and the dilemmas of liberal world order. Perspectives on Politics. Vol. 7, no. 1. Pp. 71-87.

14. Ikenberry G.J. 2011. Liberal Leviathan: The origins, crisis, and transformation of the American world order. Princeton University Press.

15. Ikenberry G.J. 2011a. The future of the liberal world order: internationalism after America. Foreign Affairs. Vol. 90, No. 3. Pp. 56-62.

16. Ikenberry G.J. 2008. The Rise of China and the Future of the West: Can the Liberal System Survive? Foreign Affairs. Vol. 87, No. 1. Pp. 23-37.

17. Ikenberry G. J., Parmar I., Stokes D. 2018. Introduction: Ordering the world? Liberal internationalism in theory and practice. International Affairs. Vol. 94, No. 1. Pp. 1-5.

18. Kahler M. 2013. Rising powers and global governance: negotiating change in a resilient status quo. International Affairs. Vol. 89, No. 3. Pp. 711-729.

19. Kaufman J.P. 2017. The US perspective on NATO under Trump: lessons of the past and prospects for the future. International Affairs. Vol. 93, No. 2. Pp. 251-266.

20. Kennedy S. 2010. The myth of the Beijing Consensus. Journal of Contemporary China. Vol. 19, No. 65. Pp. 461-477.

21. Larson D. W., Shevchenko A. 2010. Status seekers: Chinese and Russian responses to US primacy. International Security. Vol. 34. No. 4. Pp. 63-95.

22. Larson D. W., Paul T. V., Wohlforth W. C. 2014. Status and world order In Status in world politics. Cambridge University Press. Pp. 3-29.

23. Lesage D. 2015. Rising powers and multilateral institutions. Palgrave Macmillan UK.

24. Mearsheimer J. J. 2019. Bound to Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Liberal International Order. International Security. Vol. 43. No. 4. Pp. 7-50.

25. Mearsheimer J. J. 2001. The tragedy of great power politics. WW Norton & Company.

26. Modongal S. 2016. Development of nationalism in China. Cogent Social Sciences. No. 2: 1235749. DOI: 10.1080/23311886.2016.1235749

27. Nye Jr J. S. 2017. Will the liberal order survive: The history of an idea. Foreign Affairs. Vol. 96, No. 1. Pp. 10-16.

28. Patrick S. 2010. Irresponsible stakeholders? The difficulty of integrating rising powers. Foreign Affairs. Vol. 89, No. 6. Pp. 44-53.

29. Round J., Odedokun M. 2004. Aid effort and its determinants. International Review of Economics and Finance. No. 13. Pp.293-309.

30. Schirm S. A. 2010. Leaders in need of followers: Emerging powers in global governance. European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 16, No. 2. Pp. 197-221.

31. Schweller R. 2011. Emerging powers in an age of disorder. Global governance. Vol.17, No. Pp. 285-297. DOI: 10.1163/19426720-01703002

32. Stephen M.D. 2017. Emerging powers and emerging trends in global governance. Global Governance. Vol. 23, No.3. Pp. 483-502. DOI: 10.1163/19426720-02303009

33. Stephen M. D. 2014. Rising powers, global capitalism and liberal global governance: A historical materialist account of the BRICs challenge. European journal of international relations. Vol. 20, No. 4. Pp. 912-938.

34. Stephen M. D., Zürn M. (ed.). 2019. Contested World Orders: Rising Powers, Non-Governmental Organizations, and the Politics of Authority Beyond the Nation-State. Oxford University Press.

35. Stokes D. 2018. Trump, American hegemony and the future of the liberal international order. International Affairs. Vol. 94, No. 1. Pp. 133-150.

36. Weber M. 1978. Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. University of California Press.

37. Wendt A. 1999. Social theory of international politics. Cambridge University Press. Williamson J. 2012. Is the “Beijing Consensus” now dominant? Asia Policy. No. 13. Pp. 1-16.

38. Yao Y. 2015. Beijing consensus. The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Nationalism. Pp. 1-4.

39. Zakaria F. 2008. The post-American world. New York. Avaljan G.A. et al. 2015. Konsul'tativnyj process po vyrabotke celej ustojchivogo razvitija: v poiskah global'nyh podhodov. [Sustainable Development Goals Consultative Process: Looking for Global Approaches]. Vestnik Rossijskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Serija: Mezhdunarodnye otnoshenija. No. 4. Pp.132-146. (In Russian)

40. Bartenev V. I. 2015. Formirovanie global'noj povestki dnja v sfere ustojchivogo razvitija posle 2015 goda. [Shaping the global sustainable development agenda after 2015] Vestnik mezhdunarodnyh organizacij. Vol. 10. No. 3. Pp. 7-32. (In Russian)

41. Bragina E. A. 2014. Vneshnejekonomicheskaja politika kak faktor innovacionnogo rosta [Foreign economic policy as a factor of innovative growth] Mirovaja jekonomika i mezhdun arodnye otnoshenija. No. 2. Pp. 92-99. (In Russian)

42. Galishheva N.V. 2014. «Delijskij konsensus» - indijskaja model' liberalizacii jekonomiki [«Delhi Consensus» - The Indian Model of Economic Liberalization] Azija i Afrika segodnja. No.3. Pp.2-8. (In Russian)

43. Degterev D.A. 2014. Rossijskaja politika v sfere sodejstvija mezhdunarodnomu razvitiju: kontury partnerstva so stranami BRIKS [Russian policy in the field of international development assistance: the outlines of partnership with the BRICS countries] Vestnik Rossijskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Serija: Mezhdunarodnye otnoshenija. №. 1. Pp. 5-12. (In Russian).

44. Degterev D.A. 2013. Rossijskaja Federacija kak novyj mezhdunarodnyj donor: dilemmy identichnosti [Russian Federation as a New International Donor: Identity Dilemmas] Vestnik mezhdunarodnyh organizacij: obrazovanie, nauka, novaja ekonomika. Vol. 8. №. 2. Pp. 69-85. (In Russian).

45. Degterev D.A. 2012. Sodejstvie mezhdunarodnomu razvitiju kak instrument prodvizhenija vneshnepoliticheskih i vneshnejekonomicheskih interesov [Assistance to international development as a tool for promoting foreign policy and foreign economic interests]. MGIMO Review of International Relations. №. 2. Pp. 47-57. (In Russian).

46. Potapenko M.V. 2014. KNR kak novyj mezhdunarodnyj donor: osobennosti politiki sodejstvija mezhdunarodnomu razvitiju [China as a new international donor: features of the policy of promoting international development] Vestnik Rossijskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Serija: Mezhdunarodnye otnoshenija. №. 1. P. 19-30. (In Russian).