Professor Hira discussed the relationship between normative theory and empirical events, using Latin America as an area study. He essentially attempted to connect the historical events and periods with the normative theories that are prevalent in international politics and examine which theories could best explain each time period. He began by outlining the prevalent theories in international relations: realist, neo-realist, liberal, neo-liberal, dependency, all of which we have examined in class and dependent development theory. The liberal theory as he defined it is closer to the Grotian, 19th century theory while neo-liberalism acknowledges power but believes power is best suited at the international level where cooperation can prevail. Dependent development theory is an extension of dependency theory, in that there is still dependency and exploitation but there is some economic growth. This growth however is still dependent on markets.

He next examined Latin America in six historical periods and associated theories with each of them:

1. Pre-cold war period 1800s-1930 Here, he used the dependency theory to explain this period, as there was a high degree of US exploitation and influence in Latin America, with the Monroe doctrine as an example.
2. Great Depression and World War II 1930-1945 This period of depression forced Latin America to industrialize. If a nation-state is dependent on agricultural exports and manufactured imports and it can no longer get these imports due to the depression and other nation-states closing their markets, it will be forced to provide for itself. This period was associated with the dependent development theory as there was now growth that was accompanied by the continuous dependency. The US and others were pre-occupied with the war effort, which allowed space for Latin America to develop.
3. Cold War - 1945-1971 He associated this period with both realism and neo-realism. It was realist in that it was the US against the USSR and the impact this had on the third world. However, from the Latin American point of view, due to the nature of the international system in the cold war they were able to play the US and the USSR ‘off one another’ and gain from it. They would switch sides between the two whenever it was in their best interests to do so. What developed was a situation where if the US supported a Latin American government the USSR would support the Guerilla forces and vice versa.
4. Detente, World Financial Markets - 1971-1980 This period is marked by the US and USSR trying to work together and to reduce the hostilities, which could be interpreted as a neo-liberal idea. However, for the third world, there was an increase in industrialization and rapid progress that would lend itself to the dependent development theory. As well, the dependency model is partially rejected because of the rise of the East Asian newly industrialized countries.
5. Debt Crisis - 1980s-1990 This ‘lost decade’ was marked by massive debt, hyperinflation and stagnant economic growth. It also saw the renewal of conflict between the US and USSR, however this time by ‘proxy’, exemplified by the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. The US and USSR where using their allies to fight wars, which was both a realist and neo-realist idea. Economically, the dependency theory could best explain the situation because there was no real growth during this period and no economic independence.
6. Post-Cold War Period - 1990s - Today This period is marked by the end of bipolarity and the rise of either a multipolar, if we are to argue economics over security, or unipolar, if we are to argue for the closely-knit nature of economics and security.

For Latin America there has been some basic economic growth, but this has been limited due to their limited choices. The dominance of the US has reduced their ability to play the US and USSR ‘off each other’ and they have become increasingly dependent upon the US, exemplified by the adoption of the US currency in many countries and the opening of markets to the US. This has been accompanied with growth so the dependent development theory would seem to be the best fit. In conclusion, Professor Hira’s major point was to show that the application of normative theories is a difficult test and is often dependent upon your perspective. However despite its difficult nature, when international relations theories are applied they can be extremely useful.