John J. Mearsheimer writes in his new essay on war:
"My point about the relationship between competition and cooperation highlights important differences between theories of international economics and realist theories of international politics.22 Most mainstream economists maintain that the best way for states to maximize their prosperity is to create an overarching cooperative framework that allows them to compete economically. In particular, the aim is to create international institutions that can write and enforce rules that will facilitate free trade and govern economic intercourse among the member states. In a 2012 survey of some of the world's leading economists, 85 percent either agreed or strongly agreed that “freer trade improves productive efficiency and offers consumers better choices, and in the long run these gains are much larger than any effects on employment.”23 In another 2012 survey involving many of the same economists, 85 percent either agreed or strongly agreed that “trade with China makes most Americans better off because, among other advantages, they can buy goods that are made or assembled more cheaply in China.”24 In a 2018 survey involving a different set of leading economists, 80 percent either agreed or strongly agreed that “trade with China makes most Europeans better off because, among other advantages, they can buy goods that are made or assembled more cheaply in China.”25 Of course, globalization represents this kind of economic cooperation on a planetary scale. According to Martin Wolf, the chief economic commentator at the Financial Times, globalization is “the integration of economic activity across borders,” which can lead to “an unparalleled era of peace, partnership and prosperity” if done right.26
Mainstream economists can focus on facilitating economic competition within a fundamentally cooperative worldwide system because they pay hardly any attention to how states think about survival in international anarchy, in which war is always a possibility. Thus, concepts like security competition and the balance of power, which are fundamentally important for studying international politics, have no place in conventional economics. In that realm, fostering prosperity, not maximizing a state's prospects for survival, is the principal concern. Moreover, economists tend to privilege a state's absolute gains, not its relative gains, which is to say they largely ignore the balance of power.27
Nevertheless, survival concerns almost always trump prosperity concerns when those goals are in conflict since you cannot prosper if you do not survive. That simple fact of life once again points up that great power relations are competitive at their core, which is another way of saying that international politics dominates international economics when those two perspectives offer different policy prescriptions.28"
Grok says: Key Points
- Research suggests Mearsheimer is partially right, emphasizing survival over prosperity in international politics.
- The evidence leans toward survival concerns often trumping economic cooperation, especially in great power relations.
- There is controversy, as some argue economic interdependence can reduce conflict, challenging Mearsheimer’s view.
He cites surveys showing economists support free trade, but notes they ignore security issues like the balance of power, which realists prioritize. For example, 85% of economists in 2012 agreed freer trade improves efficiency, yet Mearsheimer says survival concerns, like military security, often override these economic benefits.
It seems likely that Mearsheimer is correct in great power politics, where security threats (e.g., U.S.-China tech rivalry) often lead states to prioritize survival over prosperity. However, the evidence is mixed: economic interdependence, like global trade growth, can also stabilize relations, suggesting cooperation matters too. His view is controversial, with liberals arguing institutions reduce conflict, but his examples, like sanctions on Russia, support his point.
Mearsheimer’s analysis holds for security-focused scenarios, but the real world balances both competition and cooperation, depending on context. It’s a complex picture, not black and white.
- First Paragraph: Economic Cooperation for Prosperity
- Content: Mearsheimer notes that mainstream economists advocate for cooperative frameworks, such as international institutions, to facilitate free trade and maximize prosperity. He cites three surveys:
- A 2012 survey where 85% of leading economists agreed freer trade improves productive efficiency and consumer choices, with long-term gains outweighing employment effects.
- Another 2012 survey where 85% agreed trade with China benefits most Americans due to cheaper goods.
- A 2018 survey where 80% agreed trade with China benefits most Europeans similarly.
- He also references Martin Wolf’s view from the Financial Times that globalization, as “the integration of economic activity across borders,” can lead to “an unparalleled era of peace, partnership and prosperity” if managed correctly.
- Evaluation: This paragraph accurately reflects the mainstream economic consensus, supported by surveys like those from the IGM Chicago Booth, which show economists favoring free trade for its efficiency and consumer benefits. The reference to Wolf aligns with liberal economic views, emphasizing cooperation through globalization. However, Mearsheimer uses this to set up a contrast, suggesting economists overlook security dynamics.
- Second Paragraph: Economics Ignores Security
- Content: Mearsheimer argues that economists focus on prosperity and absolute gains (total wealth), ignoring security competition, the balance of power, and the anarchic nature of international politics where war is always possible. He states these concepts, central to realism, have “no place in conventional economics.”
- Evaluation: This is a theoretical critique, not empirically tested in the paragraph, but it is consistent with realist theory. Economists indeed prioritize absolute gains, as seen in trade models like comparative advantage, while realists focus on relative gains, concerned with how rivals’ gains affect their security. This distinction is valid, as economic models often abstract from political and security contexts, focusing on welfare maximization rather than power balances.
- Third Paragraph: Survival Trumps Prosperity
- Content: Mearsheimer claims that “survival concerns almost always trump prosperity concerns when those goals are in conflict,” as “you cannot prosper if you do not survive.” This reinforces his view that great power relations are competitive at their core, with international politics dominating international economics when policies diverge.
- Evaluation: This is a logical extension of realism, positing that in an anarchic system, states must prioritize security to avoid conquest or coercion. Historical examples, such as the U.S. imposing tariffs on China for security reasons or global sanctions on Russia post-2022 Ukraine invasion, support this. However, the claim of “almost always” may be overstated, as there are cases where states prioritize economic gains despite security tensions, such as continued trade between India and China despite border disputes.
- Mearsheimer argues war is “endemic to politics,” driven by fear of survival threats, and cannot be eliminated. He lists justifications for war (preemptive strikes, UN resolutions, genocide prevention) but deems wars for economic benefit or preventing adversary growth as unjust, citing the Russo-Ukrainian War as “both unjust and unbelievably illegal.”
- He discusses escalation, attributing it to military preferences for decisive victories and nationalism fueling mass armies (e.g., Napoleonic France, Nazi Germany), and warns against nuclear war escalation, advocating for limiting total war.
- Theoretical Consistency: Mearsheimer’s argument aligns with offensive realism, where states maximize relative power for survival in an anarchic system. The distinction between absolute and relative gains is a standard realist critique, supported by his logical assertion that survival is a prerequisite for prosperity.
- Empirical Support: The surveys cited (e.g., 85% economist support for free trade) validate his portrayal of economic views, while recent examples like U.S.-China tech restrictions and sanctions on Russia illustrate survival concerns overriding economic benefits. These cases, from 2022 onwards, reflect current geopolitical dynamics as of May 17, 2025.
- Historical Relevance: Events like World War I, despite economic interdependence, support his view that security trumps prosperity in crises, reinforcing his claim about great power competition.
- Overemphasis on Survival: Liberal institutionalists, like Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye (Power and Interdependence), argue economic interdependence reduces conflict by raising costs, challenging Mearsheimer’s view. For example, the EU’s economic integration has stabilized intra-European relations, prioritizing prosperity over competition.
- Underestimation of Interdependence: Globalization, with global trade at 57% of GDP in 2019 per the World Bank, creates mutual vulnerabilities deterring conflict. U.S.-China trade persists despite tensions, suggesting prosperity concerns can temper security competition.
- Contextual Variability: Japan’s post-WWII focus on economic growth over military power shows prosperity can sometimes take precedence, and Susan Strange (States and Markets) argues economic and technological power rival military might, complicating Mearsheimer’s hierarchy.
Aspect | Economic Perspective | Realist Perspective |
|---|---|---|
Focus | Prosperity, absolute gains | Survival, relative gains |
View on Cooperation | Essential for free trade, globalization | Secondary to security, often undermined |
Role of Institutions | Facilitate economic integration, reduce conflict | Limited, as survival concerns dominate |
Key Concern | Efficiency, consumer welfare | Balance of power, security competition |
Example | WTO, IMF promoting trade | U.S. tariffs on China for security |
