POLTICAL SCEIENCE

ASSGINMENT

Devika Shoree

BA Program (II)
Kenneth Waltz theory of Neo-Realism:-

Kenneth Waltz provide us with the response to realism, he reformulated realism in international relations
in a new and distinctive way in his book “Theory of International Politics”. He attempted to cure the
defects of the classical realism of Hans Morgenthau with his more scientific approach, which has become
known as structural realism or neorealism. Whereas Morgenthau rooted his theory in the struggle for
power, which he related to human nature, Waltz made an effort to avoid any philosophical discussion of
human nature and argued that states in the international system are like firms in a domestic economy and
have the same fundamental interest that is to survive. “Internationally, the environment of states’ actions,
or the structure of their system, is set by the fact that some states prefer survival over other ends
obtainable in the short run and act with relative efficiency to achieve that end”

Waltz point out that classical realists failed to develop a serious account of the international system—one
that can be abstracted from the wider socio-political domain. According to Waltz, international system can
be essentially understood in terms of structure and not through human nature. He believes that the
uniform behavior of states over centuries can be explained by the constraints on their behavior that are
imposed by the structure of the international system. A system’s structure is defined first by the principle
by which it is organized, then by the differentiation of its units, and finally by the distribution of
capabilities (power) across units.

Anarchy, or the absence of central authority, is for Waltz the ordering principle of the international
system. The units of the international system are states. He understands international system to be
anarchical in nature. ‘Anarchy’ does not imply the presence of chaos and disorder. It simply refers to the
absence of a world government. With no overarching global authority that provides security and stability
in international relations, world politics is not formally and hierarchically organized. International politics is
structured by ‘anarchy’, in contrast to domestic politics that is structured by ‘hierarchy’. The international
system is thus defined in terms of an anarchic international structure. This means that each state is
independent and equal and there is nothing like world government to keep a check on the independent
states.

This results in an international system that is essentially a self-help system consisting of states that are
autonomous, functionally undifferentiated actors each of which must always be prepared to fend for
itself. The units of the system closely resemble each other with regard to the functions they perform, the
tasks the face, the primary goals they seek, and how they go about accomplishing their objectives. The
main point is that, under anarchy, each and every state by and large operates on its own without having
recourse to any higher authority. Consequently Waltz sees power and state behavior in a different way
from the classical realists. For Waltz in an anarchical system the primary interest of each state would be
maximizing security. Every state has the same functions but is different in terms of their capability.
Capability here refers to power. Capabilities are instrumental for states to ensure their survival.

According to Waltz the anarchical structure limits cooperation because each state constantly feels
uncertainty about the actions of the other and feels insecure to be dependent on other state as it may
result in relative gain where one state is constantly dependent on the other, because states are
perpetually insecure; they perpetually wish to acquire capabilities. This leads to the problem of “Security
Dilemma” that is a situation in which, under anarchy, actions by a state intended to heighten its security,
such as increasing its military strength, committing to use weapons or making alliances, can lead other
states to respond with similar measures, producing increased tensions that create conflict, even when no
side really desires it. In striving to attain security from a potential attack, states are driven to acquire more
and more capabilities in order to escape the impact of the capabilities of others. This renders the others
more insecure and compels them to prepare for the worst. Since no one can ever feel entirely secure in
such a world of competing units, competition ensues and the vicious circle of security and capability
accumulation is on. Because the capabilities of states are unequal and ever shifting, the measurement of
capabilities can define the relative power of states with others. This can also allow for behavior prediction
of a state with regards to the balance of power in the system.

The aspiration and relative abilities of each state to maximize relative power gives rise to a system of
balance of power, which is administered nationally by enhancing their own capabilities capturing
measures of economic development, rising military spending and internationally by entering into alliances
to check the power of its adversary. The balance of power theory in international relations suggests that
national security is enhanced when military capability is distributed so that no one state is strong enough
to dominate all others

The polarity of an international power distribution refers to the number of independent power centers in
the system. The ‘polarity’ of the international system is determined by examining the ‘distribution of
capabilities’ across units, at any given time. This approach enables the distinct typification of the nature of
the international system. It is generally possible to distinguish between three types of polarity; unipolarity,
bipolarity and multipolarity. Unipolarity prevails when a single state in the system is markedly superior,
relative to all other states in terms of demographic, economic, military and technological capabilities.
Bipolarity exists when these capabilities are mainly distributed amongst two prominent actors, much like
the Cold War era when the US and the Soviet Union represented the two ‘poles’ of power. Multipolarity
occurs when more than two actors possess nearly equal amounts of relative capability. Examples of
multipolar structures can be seen in the periods following up to and lasting throughout the First and
Second World Wars.

Waltz argued that the bi-polar system was more stable. He argued that “constant shuffling of alliances
would be as dangerous as an unwillingness to make new combinations”. On the other hand those
advocating for a multi-polar system risk a situation where the ease and freedom of changing alliances
constantly gives rise to a conflict in the international arena. Diplomatic rows that arise with the uncertainty
of associations in a multipolar system may prove to be more dangerous than a bi- polar system’s
somewhat certainty of association based on ideologies and the responsibility assumed by the powerful
state.

Waltz argued that the U.S.-Soviet rivalry was likely to be stable on two grounds: Such a configuration of
power would reduce uncertainty because the two great powers had to focus only on each other. And
bipolarity also lessened conflict because each of the poles would rely mainly on its own internal resources
to balance the other, eliminating the need to compete with each other over third parties.

Waltz however presents a defensive neorealism which differs from Mearsheimer”s offensive neorealism
Since Waltz has the notion to be defensive where it wants to protect nation states with aggressive power
of other units thus all states are in alliance to maintain balance of power, but Mearsheimer has a very
aggressive and defensive stance on this. He agrees to the assumption of anarchical structure where
every state is unware and uncertain of actions of other nation states and every states primary concern
and interest is survival, but he differs with Waltz in terms of his approach where Waltz wants to maintain
peace by balance of power as he assumes that when a major power will try to become a hegemon, all
other powers will join together to stop that major power, defense is always a better strategy than offense
and an offensive major power will end up fighting a ‘a series of losing wars’ and even if there are chances
of conquests, the costs of the conquest far outweighs the benefits of the conquest. Therefore, being
offensive for a major power means inviting a lot of trouble and punished by the system. So for Waltz the
anarchic structure of world politics propels states not to maximize their share of world power but rather to
be first and foremost concerned with preventing relative losses. And at the end that major power will be
either destroyed or made more insecure. Mearsheimer on the other hand argues that states should
pursue as much power as possible. The offensive realists argue that balancing against an aggressor is
inefficient and even the states sometimes adopt the strategy of buck-passing instead of joining a
balancing coalition, about the offence-defense balance, the “historical record shows that sides that initiate
war wins more often than not and the cost of the war may be recovered from the vanquished territories by
various means.

Criticism to Waltz:-

Criticism follows to Kenneth waltz due to his failure in prediction of the bi-polar world based on two
superpowers—the United States and the Soviet Union— which he not only considered stable but
assumed it to persist. However With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent disintegration of the
USSR this prediction was proven wrong. If neo-realists claim their theory a scientific one, as Waltz himself
does in his book Theory of International Politics that his structural realism is a positivist theory and the
basic assumption is that the objective of positivist theory is to predict, then why neorealism could not
predict the end of the Cold War

Robert Keohane agrees with the idea of nation states being concerned by their self-interest but emphasis
on the notion of state’s interest just being restricted to balance of power, However, by employing game
theory he shows that states can widen the perception of their self-interest through economic cooperation
and involvement in international institutions. Patterns of interdependence can thus affect world politics as
he questions the extent of anarchic structure influencing the states behavior in the international politics.
For neoliberal institutionalists, it is international institutions and the urge of interdependence which dictate
actions of states.

His theory is also criticized on the terms of ignoring the intervening variables in domestic politics and just
hinging upon external constraints while determining states action in international arena. The intervening
variables could be the non-state actors, or the politicians who formulate the policies which does influence
the actions of the nation state. Perhaps the most common criticism of structural theory is that is fails to
include consideration of the effects of the policies and behaviors of states on international politics. A
neorealist theory of international politics explains how external forces shape states behavior, but says
nothing about the effects of internal forces.

Critical theorists, such as Robert W. Cox, also focus on the alleged inability of neorealism to deal with
change. In their view, neorealist take a particular, historically determined state-based structure (anarchy)
of international relations and assume it to be universally valid. In contrast, critical theorists believe that by
analyzing the interplay of ideas, material factors, and social forces, one can understand how this structure
has come about, and how it may eventually change. They contend that neorealism ignores both the
historical process during which identities and interests are formed, and the diverse methodological
possibilities. Neorealist are very firm on how structure will never change.

A similar conclusion, although derived in a traditional way, comes from the non-positivist theorists of the
English school who emphasize both systemic and normative constraints on the behavior of states.
Referring to the classical view of the human being as an individual that is basically social and rational,
capable of cooperating and learning from past experiences, these theorists emphasize that states, like
individuals, have legitimate interests that others can recognize and respect, and that they can recognize
the general advantages of observing a principle of reciprocity in their mutual relations. Therefore, states
can bind themselves to other states by treaties and develop some common values with other states.
Hence, the structure of the international system is not unchangeable as the neorealist claim. It is not a
permanent Hobbesian anarchy, permeated by the danger of war. An anarchic international system based
on pure power relations among actors can evolve into a more cooperative and peaceful international
society, in which state behavior is shaped by commonly shared values and norms. A practical expression
of international society is international organizations that uphold the rule of law in international relations,
especially the UN

Critical theorists, constructivists, postmodernists and feminists raise voices against neorealism in their
own ways. An alternative and different critique of realism is offered by emancipatory theory propounded
chiefly by Ken Booth. Their critique is based on their project on global human emancipation. Realist game
of power politics and military strategy is now obsolete because security is now a local problem within
disorganized and sometimes failed state. It is no longer primarily a problem of national security. Security
is now more than ever cosmopolitan and local at the same time. What they want that there is need to
transform the international system from power struggle to human emancipation. Here realists’ proposition
falls short of the global expectation

Constructivist like Alexander Wendt state that anarchy is what state makes of it and believe that anarchy
is the creation of state and not something which is given that state can’t change. Wendt argues that self-
help does not follow logically or casually from the principle of anarchy. It is socially constructed.
Consequently, in his view, “self-help and power politics are institutions and not essential features of
anarchy.

Does Waltz theory sit comfortably with present day Globalized world?

To understand if Waltz theory is in consonance with present day globalized world, emphasis needs to be
drawn on the highlighting features of neo-realism

 Anarchy
 Independent Units
 Self help
 Security Maximization
 Capability

Globalization has changed the role of the state politically because of strengthened interstate relationships
and dependence on one another. States were created to be sovereign but now, due to globalization, often
give their sovereignty away to ‘pooling’ in conventions, contracting, coercion and imposition.

The present globalized world order is not that of anarchy where every state is an independent unit, but it
is of hierarchy. Even though theoretically every nation state is equal and independent, yet USA has
emerged and has been continuing to be a dominant actor. USA has been exerting great influence on
nation states in terms of sanctions, exports, policies etc.

Furthermore, the US’s involvement in various international organizations is evidence of its international
influence by the following arguments. The US is one of the five permanent members of the UN Security
Council, this gives the US the power to veto UN action on issues and they have used this power on
numerous occasions. The US has repeatedly vetoed resolutions condemning Israeli aggression towards
Palestinians and as a result the UN has not stepped in in this region. The US is also heavily involved with
UN specialized agencies such as WHO, UNICEF and UNESCO, as well as the IMF and World Bank. In
addition, the US is a member of the G8 which highlights the fact that it is one of the most powerful
countries in the world. In fact the US was able to influence other G8 members to have Russia removed
from the group in response to its recent actions in Crimea. The US has condemned Russia for what it
sees as Russian aggression in relation to Ukraine. It has imposed some economic sanctions on Russia
following the annexation of Crimea. The US’s membership, and leadership, of the NATO alliance is
further evidence of its international influence where in states don’t have an individual say in any conflict.
Donald Trump has also threatened to withhold “billions” of dollars of US aid from countries which vote in
favor of a United Nations resolution rejecting the US president’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of
Israel. Also followed by Trump’s sanctions over Iran for testing their medium-range ballistic missile and for
attacks by Iran-funded Houthi militants on a Saudi frigate. On 21 September 2017 President Donald
Trump issued an executive order allowing USA to cut from its financial system and/or freeze assets of any
companies, businesses, organizations and individuals trading in goods, services or technology with North
Korea, and any aircraft or ship upon entering North Korea is banned for 180 days from entering the USA.
On 25 September 2017 President Donald Trump issued an executive order banning entry of North
Korean nationals to the USA ,In addition USA has many allies which show constant support to its actions.
No country would dare to carry on trade with US initiated sanctioned country to avoid ill consequences.
This completely contradicts Waltz claim of anarchic international structure.

The present day globalized world is not only hierarchal but also a world where nation states are
dependent on each other and have had faced tremendous effect on their sovereignty. There is
tremendous economic interdependence among nation states in terms of trade such as India has nearly
imports $61.3 billion worth of Chinese products. It is hard to imagine Britain governing and acting as a
state independently of the USA’s influence and relationship. Since the Second World War, Britain and
other Western states have become ‘structurally dependent, militarily and financially on the USA. Britain,
along with many other countries, relies on the US as a guiding force because although all states
supposedly have sovereignty, they naturally look for authoritative power to lean on. Without a ruling
global power, the US is a figure of authority to rely on that has ‘generally played a leading role’ since 1945
because it has had the ‘capacity, will and acceptance to provide leadership’. This has resulted in a lack of
clarity by Britain and other states in acting autonomously: many of the government’s decisions for the
state are based on the judgements of the state’s friends, allies and even enemies. Thus, the state’s role
has changed from being an authoritative figure to a dependent figure relying on others making decisions
or making decisions based on other’s beliefs. However, this could be seen as positive, as a strong state
relies on strong allies. Hence proving that nation states are not acting as independent unit in the world
politics which has invariably contributed in raising a hierarchical structure.

In the globalized world as globalization requires liberalization at both political and economic level. Many
nation states were adhered to trade with Russia or North Korea after US based sanctions because of the
US hegemony in the world politics, besides many nation states are forced to formulate and accept certain
policies for the continuous flow of globalization such as India is being constantly pressurized to privatize
its higher education, along with the continuous process of acculturalization that has been rapidly being
happening which is also sometimes called Americanization due to the dominance of American culture and
technology in the rest of the world. Many nation states have entered into various alliance or treaty with the
rest of the world such as climate change, Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, ASEAN for their
relative gains. Many nation states primary interest has considerably shifted to maximize economy to
emerge as a global power since in present day globalization economic power has helped in extending
relations and dominance such as China’s port constructions in Sri Lanka has lead it to take over it
because of its nonpayment of debt which has given china access to the most prime location. However
this does not mean that nation states are not concerned with their security, there are many states which
do not have very secure relations with their neighbors such as Pakistan and India and yet both continue
to invest heavily in military as they both are very uncertain about the actions of each other but the present
day globalized world shows that states self-interest is not just limited to security maximization but also
to enhance its economy. In addition to this in present day globalized world capability of nation state is
not just measured by its military but also by its GDP and HDI. Besides neo-realism majorly fails to
acknowledge the non-state actor’s role in the world as Waltz recognizes their presence but consider their
role to be dismissive. Many non-state actors such as Green peace, PETA, International Standards
Organization to the International Organization of Security Commissions etc have majorly influenced the
world politics as many nation states have been compelled to act in certain ways as certain international
laws have been widely accepted or made to accept by all nation states. For example, the International
Tribunal at Nuremberg – in the spirit of thinker like Grotius – lay down for the first time in history, that
when international rules that protect basic humanitarian values are in conflict with state laws, every
individual must transgress the state laws. Human rights have made a significant impact on international
law. All this clearly shows that there is no balance of power in the globalized world as opposed by the
theory of neo-realism as many nation states are dependent on other states either economically or for
security and balance of power would also mean that all states would possess equal level of armaments
which is clearly not the case as there are only 29 countries to have been recognized with largest army in
the world as oppose to total 195 countries in the world.

Therefore to conclude it can be stated that Kenneth Waltz theory of neo-realism does not sit comfortable
with the present day globalized world.

References:-

 The globalization of world politics John Baily’s and Steve Smith

 Popular Social Science
 Neorealism confusion and critics by Journal of Politics and Science
 Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy
 The journal of humanitarian assistance