International Relations Theory

NEOREALISM AND ITS CRITICISM

In this analysis, I will try to give you a general framework on the criticism on
neorealism. First of all, I will underline the main assumptions of neorealism giving
examples from realist thinkers’ analysis. Then, I will examine the criticism; which
points they are especially targeting and what their suggestions are.

From the beginning of realist thinkers such as Machiavelli, until today’s

contemporary neorealist thinkers such as Kenneth Waltz, one thing that has remained
the same is that the “state” is always the main variable of their perspective. Their
system analysis relies on the assumption that the international system has an anarchic
structure and the main instrument is “power”. E. H. Carr from the realist school
considers the period between 1919-1939 as the victory of realism in his book called
“The Twenty Years Crisis” (1946). According to his perspective, in that period, the
importance of the role of power is understood. Kenneth Waltz, known as a structural
realism thinker, also makes his analysis accepting the assumption that the
international system is anarchic. But he doesn’t use the term of “power”, he uses
“capability” instead (Waltz, Theory of International Politics, 1979, pp.98).

Waltz’s analysis is very useful in understanding the system analysis. The starting
point of the criticism that we will examine is mostly a response to his analysis. Waltz
distinguishes in the first chapter of his book called “Theory of International Politics”
the theories in two parts: Reductionist and Systemic theories (Waltz, 1979, pp.18).
According to him, analysis only at the level of state is not enough to understand the
whole system. The reductionist theories find the results that they actually aim to find.
But the systematic theories provide the unexpected findings, which means for
example the interdependence between states is also important to understand the
domestic politics. Actually Waltz’s work is too large to show with all its dimensions
here. But I would like to draw at least some general assumption to make it easier to
understand the criticism. The main emphasis of his analysis is the relations between
the system and the non-state actors. The system is anarchic, hierarchic and there is an
absence of central rule. According to him, because of this structure of the
international system, the bipolar period is the ideal system for balancing and
bandwagoning each other. The great powers, managers or adversary partners have
capabilities to provide the stability between the states and the global system (balance
of power). They are coercive and restrictive (Waltz, 1979, pp.74).

Before talking about the criticisms, it will be good to show some common points of
them. On one hand, most of the critics agree with many parts of the theory of Waltz
but on the other hand, they blame neorealism for ignoring functional differentiations
of states and non-state actors, and ignoring historical and social dimensions. First we
will review the criticism of one of the liberal thinkers: John Gerard Ruggie.

Ruggie’s criticism actually has two dimensions. First, as we said before, he criticizes
the theory because of ignoring functional differentiations of states and capabilities
(Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity, 1983, pp. 135). According to
him in Waltz’s analysis, the degree of concentration of capabilities within the system
(third component of Waltz Theory) is blurred. The second dimension of his criticism
is about the “dynamic density” of Durkheim. Although Waltz says that he took the
dynamic density theory of Durkheim into account, we have seen a contradiction in his
analysis. According to Ruggie, “Waltz banishes such factors to the level of process,
shaped by structure, but not in turn affecting structure in any manner depicted by his
model. As a result, Waltz theory of society contains only a reproductive logic, but not
transformative logic” (1983, pp. 148-152). In my opinion, it is a very serious
departure from Durkheim’s perspective. As Ruggie said and I totally agree as well,
the problems can be at the global level but the solutions can be at the national level as
well. It seems that Robert Keohane also agrees with this criticism. According to him,
“International history is dynamic and dialectic rather than cyclical” (1983, pp. 181).
The other criticism from Keohane is about the definition of state interests. He
considers that the neorealist theories do not say anything about the prediction of state
interests so since systematic theory cannot predict state interests, it cannot support
deterministic conclusions (1983, pp. 183). The other distortion of the theory is about
the definition of power. It is difficult to measure the term of power. In Keohane’s
perspective, there should not be one stable definition; he recommends that the
definition should shape according to the problem (1983, pp. 191). I totally agree with
this statement, because in the global world, military power does not mean anything
without the other variables.
The toughest criticisms are coming from Robert Cox. He criticizes Waltz claiming
that his theory is a problem-solving theory (1983, pp. 208), because Waltz
recommends an American-centric world model abstracting from the realities of the
Cold War period. According to Cox, Waltz examines only one limited period of
history and shows it like a universal reality. I agree with Cox on this point, because
Waltz’s theory is trying to be a general theory without taking into account the
different places, times and special conditions. As a result this makes him a
reductionist, which he was against. Richard Ashley is also one of the criticizing
thinkers of Waltz’s theory. Ashley blames the theory for having a totally western-
centric point of view. According to Ashley, the neorealist balance of power is nothing
else but a mechanic relation defined by military and economic powers independent
from perceptions, knowledge and purpose of actors. That is why, historical and social
dimensions are undeveloped. He considers that Waltz’s theory is more statist than
structuralist (1983, pp. 268-273).

Finally, we should not ignore that neorealism was a good starting point for new
theories such as Liberal Institutionalism and Constructivist Theories. Even though the
criticism, most of these thinkers confirm that Neorealism helped determine the
strength of the trap (1983, pp. 200). These critics opened a way for more conceptual
theories with social, individual and state dimensions. Neorealism with its fundamental
questions became an important development in understanding international relations.

Z. Müge ÖNER
Bibliography:

 Ashley, Richard K., The Poverty of Neorealism, 1983, pp. 255-300.

 Cox, Robert W., Social Forces, States and World Orders, 1983, pp. 204-254.
 Keohane, Robert O., Theory of World Politics, 1983, pp. 158-204.
 Ruggie, John Gerard, Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity,
1983, pp. 131-158.
 Waltz, Kenneth, The Theory of International Relations, 1979.