What do international relations scholars understand by the term ‘cooperation’? Whereas realists and neoliberals disagree about the importance of… [625622]

1 Cooperation in
International Political
Economy
What do international relations scholars understand by the term
'cooperation'? Whereas realists and neoliberals disagree about the
importance of international cooperation, there is widespread agree­
ment on a working definition. I Cooperation arises, 'when actors adjust
their behaviour to the actual or anticipated preferences of others,
through a process of policy coordination,.2 Cooperation in the Airbus
case should manifest itself as the adjustment of European Community
and US trade policies.
Keohane's conception of cooperation, although very influential, has
not escaped criticism. It can be argued that cooperation is not a
discrete variable but rather, as Moravcsik points out, a bundle of
variables and that separate theories of cooperation may be required
for each one.3 These are: '(I) theories that explain state preferences for
cooperation, (2) theories that explain the outcome of interstate bar­
gaining, and (3) theories that explain compliance with institutional
norms,.4 Moravcsik's argument that flows from this is that theories of
cooperation should not be tested against one another, as is com­
monplace, and advanced as 'monocausal explanations' for cooperat­
ive outcomes. S
A related criticism concerns the emphasis that Keohane places
on cooperation as an active process of policy adjustment. Keohane
draws a sharp distinction between cooperation -active adjustment
of policy -and discord -where states regard other states as hindering
the attainment of their goals -in his work. The implication is that
states find themselves in a situation of discord and move away from this
and toward cooperation in response to stimuli. Keohane does not
appear to say much about the possibility that states choose to be
discordant.
It may be that cooperation can also be understood as a process
where states comply with international agreements they are parties to,
and where they refrain from taking unilateral action to solve a col­
lective problem. This is similar to Moravcsik's argument about co­
operation as compliance with institutional norms.
15
S. McGuire, Airbus Industrie
© Steven McGuire 1997

16 A.irbus Industrie: Conflict and Cooperation
As we argued in the Introduction, new trade theory and mercantilist
thinking can, in combination, provide powerful rationales for govern­
ment support of high-technology sectors. Given this, the prospects
for state cooperation in developing and maintaining trade in these
sectors would appear to be remote. The civilian aircraft sector is
widely regarded as the best example of a strategic sector. The huge
economies of scale mean that the market can hold two or possibly
three firms manufacturing finished airliners.6 Research and devel­
opment costs are enormous. Developing a new aircraft model can
cost upwards of $5 billion and ongoing R&D can absorb millions
of dollars a year.7 Finally, mercantilists would note the role played
by firms in this sector in military production. This would suggest
that states would work to prevent any competitive threat that
undermined the commercial viability of home firms on national
security grounds.
Both the United States and the European Community had
developed various policies to support their civilian aircraft producers.
Airbus Industrie was the European answer to numerous policy
failures at the national level. In the United States, military sponsored
R&D speeded the development of commercial products.8 Nonetheless,
these support policies did not cause a degeneration into trade war.
While United States trade officials were concerned about Airbus'
success and occasionally threatened action, barriers to trade were
reduced, not raised. In fact, the 1979 GATT agreement on civil
aircraft reduced tariff levels precisely when the first major penetration
of the American market by Airbus was occurring.9 Why would states
cooperate in a sector so critical to national interests?
Current academic debates about cooperation are dominated by
three major theories of cooperation: neorealism, neoliberalism, and
domestic politics.1o The first two are the 'classic' explanations of
cooperation and the argument about which is the more powerful
theory has dominated academic debate on the issue for several years.
The third theory, domestic politics, seeks to explain cooperation in the
area of economic relations and so is of natural concern to us. The
term 'domestic politics' in essence refers to the role that firms play in
shaping state trade policy. Three versions of domestic politics
explanations exist: one emphasizes the role of export-oriented firms,
"the second links state trade policy to the existence of a globalized
industry structure and the last considers the role of buyers of imported
goods.