Neo-Realist and Neo-Liberalist Theories of Modern World

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

Page 1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Content

s
Certificate ..................................................................................................................................3

Acknowledgment ......................................................................................................................4

Synopsis.....................................................................................................................................5

Introduction................................................................................................................................7

Contrast between the Neo-Realist and Neo- Liberal position in International Politics.............8

Neo-Neo Syntesis.....................................................................................................................12

Neo Debate...............................................................................................................................13

Conclusion................................................................................................................................18

Bibliography.............................................................................................................................19

Page 2
 CERTIFICATE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Page 3
 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Neo-Realist and Neo-Liberalism is characterized by their disagreement over specific

issues such as: the nature and consequences of anarchy, international cooperation, relative versus
absolute gains, intentions versus capabilities, institutions and regimes, and priority of state goals.

HYPOTHESIS

Where neo-realists were seen to focus on security measures, neoliberal institutionalists

are believed to have placed greater emphasis upon environmental and economic issues, with a
specific focus on the latter.

Page 4
 METHODOLOGY

This project is based on purely doctrinal method of study.

OBJECTIVES OF RESEARCH

1. To understand the concept of Neo-Realist and Neo-Liberalism theories.

2. To understand the differences between Neo-Realist and Neo-Liberalism.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. What are the main differences between Neo-Realist and Neo-Liberalism?

2. How the term “power” is related to both the theories?

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

1: Review: Neorealism and Neoliberalism

Reviewed Works: Neorealism and Its Critics. by Robert O. Keohane; The Rise of the Trading

State. by Richard
This article helps me in understanding the concept of Neo-realism and how Neorealism,
by focusing on international structure and its interacting units, provided us with a succinct
analytical framework to explain the contemporary international politics.

Page 5
2: Are Two Theories Better than One? A Constructivist Model of the Neorealist-Neoliberal
Debate. Writer- Cameron G. Thies

This article helps me to understand the difference between both the theories. How these
theories are different from each other and how both the theories put emphasis on different
aspects.

3: Baylis J., Smith S. and Owens P. 2005 . The Globalization of World Politics: An
introduction to international relations

The third stream of neo-authenticity is principally sought after by American researchers,

it talk about how a state should act notwithstanding a planned danger and persist to be pretty
much as solid as the contradicting state (protective authenticity) or a state should be proactive
and turn out to be generally more grounded than the adjoining or clashing states

Page 6
 Introduction

Realism and Liberalism are considered as the fundamental speculations of International

Relations. Despite the fact that contrasts between the two standards made them incommensurable
ideal models, by and by they formed the regulation and the practices of strategy creators in any
event to the 1970's. What happened later, is that the two principles responded to the "behaviorist
upset" and attempted to give their suppositions logical legitimacy, building 'neo' speculations
that reshaped the old ideal models.1

 Both the 'neo' approaches present a fundamental viewpoint, to comprehend the results of
foundational conditions over the conduct of states, and both recognize that such point of view is
restricted to the extent that it neglects to comprehend significant minor departure from state
conduct that emerge from homegrown elements.

The two methodologies comprehend the world as a rebel setting, in which states collaborate
without a conventional organization that oversees them. States are the principle entertainers for
the two viewpoints, albeit neo-radicalism thinks about global organizations and systems to affect
state conduct. The two viewpoints accept that states have a pretty much fixed arrangement of
interests, in spite of the fact that they contrast as far as whether influence or abundance is at the
highest point of the state's inclinations. In spite of the solid likenesses between the two
methodologies, errors between neo-authenticity and neo-progressivism spin around some main
points of interest. The primary concern of disagreement between neo-authenticity and
institutional neo-radicalism was introduced by Robert Keohane's investigate of Waltz'
hypothesis. As per Keohane, neo-authenticity clarifies closefistedly the conduct of states in a
revolutionary framework, however neglects to perceive global financial cycles and foundations
that can likewise effectsly affect states' conduct . The reason for Keohane's analysis can be
followed to inconsistencies around the outcomes of insurgency, the chance of supported
collaboration and the dominance of relative versus supreme additions.2

1
Neo-neo theory debate

2
wikispaces.neo debate

Page 7
Contrast between the Neo-Realist and Neo- Liberal position in
International Politics

Neo-Realism

For some scholastics neo-authenticity alludes to Kenneth Waltz's Theory of International

Politics (1979). Three step dance's hypothesis accentuates the significance of the construction of
the worldwide framework and its job as the essential determinant of state conduct.

Notwithstanding, neo-authenticity way of thinking has two different floods of thought, the first
being that of John Grieco and the subsequent one being the one found in security considers.

John Grieco joins three step dance's primary neo-authenticity and thoughts of the old style
pragmatists like Hans Morgenthau, Stanley Hoffman, and so forth.

The third stream of neo-authenticity is mostly sought after by American researchers, it

talk about how a state should act notwithstanding an expected danger and continue on to be
pretty much as solid as the contradicting state (cautious authenticity) or a state should be
proactive and turn out to be moderately more grounded than the adjoining or clashing states. 3

During the 1970's there was likewise the unmistakable inclination that progressivism, in
spite of its numerous aspects, was turning into the prevailing hypothetical worldview of
worldwide relations. It was the plan of authenticity in primary terms by Kenneth Waltz, with its
renowned “Theory of International Relations” (1979) to reaffirm the centrality of the political
measurement and reestablish glory to the school. Three step dance's hypothesis was
unequivocally impacted by the positivistic scientism and marked as neo-authenticity, and zeroed
in on the underlying foundational inside the pragmatist convention. He blamed past researchers
as Morgenthau, Kaplan, Hoffmann of reductionism: having investigated causes set at the
individual or the public level, they featured restricted parts of

3
See: Baylis J., Smith S. and Owens P. 2005 . The Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international
relations. 4th ed.

Page 8
 global reality, making authenticity 'a hypothesis of legislative issues as a rule, instead of a
hypothesis of International Relations'4 

Waltz moved away from Morgenthau and classical realism, which focused on human
experience to justify the behavior of the state (anthropological pessimism). Instead, he focused
on the anarchic international system's character (structural pessimism), which leads to self-help,
confrontation, and battle.

The following are the core assumptions of neo-realism as Waltz sees it:

 In an anarchic world, states and other players communicate. This ensures there is no
centralized body to impose laws and standards or defend the rights of the global
community as a whole.

 The most pressing issue faced by this form of anarchy is sustainability.

States are responsible players that choose policies that optimize gains while minimizing
risks.

 States are self-interested, and the anarchic and competitive environment encourages them
to prefer self-help to cooperative action..

 All other nations are seen as possible rivals and threats to the national security of each
state. This mistrust and fear causes a security quandary, which motivates most states'
policies..5

Neo-Liberalism

4
URL (last seen 25.08.2012.): http://www.e-ir.info/2011/02/26/waever%E2%80%99s-assessment-of-neo-neo-
synthesis-and-its-validity-in-the-neo-neo-debate/

5
URL (last seen 25.08.2012.): http://ciu.academia.edu/OlowojoluFrancis/Papers/1616528/neo_neo_debate_in_
international_relations

Page 9
Neoliberalism is a school of thinking that holds that nation-states are, or should be, obsessed
with absolute gains rather than relative gains to other nation-states.6

The neoliberal school of thought is thought to have been created by Robert Keohane and Joseph
Nye. This theory was established as a reaction to neo-realism and was dubbed "Complex
Interdependence." This signaled a profound theoretical change in the liberal tradition: by
accepting the role of states as principal actors and the anarchic nature of the international
community, they marked the start of the transition of liberalism ideology into neoliberal
institutionalism.7

Most academics believe that neoliberal institutionalism, also known as liberal

institutionalism, is the most compelling threat to realist and neo-realist thought. The foundations
of neoliberalism can be found in functional integration scholarship from the 1940s and 1950s.8

neo-liberal school thoughts of core assumptions :

 States are important players in foreign affairs, but they are not the only ones. There
are several networks, including relationships between states and between states and
non-state actors. Transgovernative and transnational ties must be viewed alongside
inter-state relations..

 Considering economic interdependence and multinational institutions, the reduction

in the role of military force is becoming profoundly significant.9

 States are responsible actors that often aim to optimize their needs in all fields of
policy..

6
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism_in_international_relation

7
Neorealism and Its Critics. by Robert O. Keohane

8
Baylis J., Smith S. and Owens P. 2005 . The Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international
relations. 4th ed.
9
A Constructivist Model of the Neorealist-Neoliberal Debate. Writer- Cameron G

Page 10
  States aim to maximize absolute benefits by cooperation; the biggest impediment to
good cooperation is state noncompliance or stealing..10

Many of the assumptions shared by the neo-liberal theory and the neo-realist theory.
According to Robert Keohane, "... institutional philosophy is a half brother of neo-realism." It
seems that new neoliberal institutionalism is making an effort to demonstrate that it is a member
of the neo-realist/realist family..

10
http://ciu.academia.edu/OlowojoluFrancis/Papers/

Page 11
The Neo Synthesis

The Neo-Neo Synthesis is a term used in international affairs to describe the 1970s
convergence of the neorealist and neoliberal[1]schools of thought. Scholars who exist outside of
those two paradigms often use the expression to disparagingly group the two together.11

Kenneth Waltz's book "Theory of International Politics" was published in 1979 in

reaction to popular recognition that liberalism has already become the dominant ideology in
international affairs. He totally reinvented the realist school of thought and gave it a scientific
bent.

The neo-liberal institutionalism of Robert Koehane and Joseph Nye was a reaction to the
growing popularity of the neo-realist paradigm. Koehane and Nye made predictions about the
world situation that were close to Waltz's assumptions.

Many academics who prefer more conservative liberal approaches are concerned about
the neo-neo synthesis, fearing that, especially under the influence of Robert Kehone,
contemporary neo-liberalism has nothing to do with the movement from which it takes its name.

The convergence of neo-realism and neo-liberalism was unavoidable because scholars of the two
great schools, in addition to sharing a set of fundamental assumptions, ended up with the same
central theme of reflection: how to assess the effects of international structure on the behavior of
states in an anarchic situation.

11
Neo syntesis/wikisource

Page 12
 The Neo Debate

Despite the apparent similarity between the two paradigms' beliefs and concerns, there is
a significant contrast between them, given that they are the 'neo' iterations of two fundamentally
opposing philosophies.

While both neo-liberalism and neo-realism borrow concepts from one another, they are
enough distinct to find themselves on opposite sides of the neo-neo controversy on a regular
basis.

The key points of the neo-neo debate are:

1. Actors within international relations

As far as neo-realists are concerned, state are the primary actors in international relations.

Neo-liberals agree that states are the primary actors in international arena, but they are
not the only actors that influence the relations.

At this point of difference, neoliberals can be right. One just has to look at the work of
the United Nations and its component bodies to see that the UN is a player in foreign affairs.
WTO, IMF, and World Bank may also be added to this list.

2. The importance of non-state actors:

According to neo-realists, neoliberals exaggerate the effect of governments and

institutions on state actions.

Institutions and governments are important factors in foreign politics, according to

neoliberals. Neo-liberals claim that they promote cooperation, while neo-realists believe that
they do not alleviate the constraints imposed by anarchy on cooperation. Liberal institutionalism
theorists place particular emphasis on institutions formed when individual states pool their
capital to form societies focused on reacting to problems shared by all member nations.

The creation of the European Union, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, United Nations,
South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, World Trade Organization, International
Monetary Fund, and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (popularly known

Page 13
as World Bank) by developed countries is cited by neo-liberals as proof that developed countries
do want to help developing countries.

The same structures will be used by neo-realists to make another claim. They would argue that
these institutions are used by developed countries to manipulate emerging countries to guarantee
that developing countries do not advance and begin to compete with them.

Martin Khor contends that the World Trade Organization (WTO) does not handle the
global economy impartially, but rather has a deliberate bias against wealthy countries and
multinational firms, affecting smaller countries with less bargaining power. He uses the example
of wealthy countries being able to retain high import tariffs on some goods, essentially blocking
imports from developed countries. The Trips (trade-related facets of intellectual property rights)
pact, which prohibits developed countries from incorporating any technologies from other
countries into their domestic structures (including medicines and agricultural products).

In its ties with India, the International Monetary Fund pressured the country to pursue a
more inclusive economic policy. The IMF's intervention signaled the beginning of a new age of
Indian economics. The much-touted liberalization, privatization, and globalization (LPG)
paradigm was not without its drawbacks. It should not be ignored that India was blackmailed into
changing its economic policy, although in a sophisticated manner. It called into question the
IMF's motives and its authority to intervene with Indian sovereignty.

3. International system is anarchic agreed the point of difference in anarchy on a

state’s behavior.

According to neo-realists, anarchy constrains foreign policy. Each state's primary target is
survival.

Page 14
 The importance of international interdependence, globalization, and the structures
developed to handle these relations is emphasized by neoliberals.

The liberal ideology of sociological populism is not dissimilar to that of neoliberals. They
believe that states' interdependence would make it prohibitively costly for them to be at odds
with one another. The early examples in England and Germany disprove this. Both nations had a
lot to lose if they went to war because they had extensive trading and cultural ties. Nonetheless,
they were on opposing sides during World War I.

When it comes to relations between the United States and India, the United States
continues to support Pakistan despite the fact that the country was known to shelter Osama Bin
Laden, who was wanted in the United States. According to popular belief, the United States is
attempting to limit India's growth because it sees India as a possible competitor. This has been
achieved by the United States and other countries such as Iraq, Iran, and Russia.

4. In the matter of international co-operation, there is no agreement.

International cooperation, according to neo-realists, is not a foregone conclusion but must

be aimed for. They believe that cooperation among self-serving states is difficult to achieve,
difficult to sustain, and dependent on the strength of a state.

Neo-liberals claim that cooperation is simple to accomplish in places where states have
common interests and jointly established mechanisms to which each state has lost some of their
authority in exchange for international peace.

According to neoliberals, as long as there is interdependence, there would be no risk of

war so going to war becomes prohibitively costly. When the functions of multinational
peacekeeping organizations are considered, international peace and cooperation is a foregone
conclusion. They are, to some degree, right.

The condition between India and Pakistan is like dry tinder. In only one light, the whole
thing will catch fire. It is just because going to war with Pakistan, no matter how justified, will
be too costly for India that there have only been four big wars between the two rival nations..

Page 15
 The neo-realist point, on the other hand, cannot be debunked. Cooperation must therefore
be maintained in a proactive manner. The United States' war on Iraq was a textbook example of
how a country can go to war with another if it believes the war would be more lucrative in the
long run.

The cold war between the USSR and the United States could not have resulted in a full-
fledged war, but it did result in a number of maneuvers to overpower each other. This means that
no matter how interdependent two nations are, if one considers it more lucrative to go to war, it
will do so. As a result, stability and cooperation are never unachievable goals.

5. there is no consensus either, when comes to gain.

According to neo-realists, neo-liberals ignore the significance of relative gains.

According to neo-realists, the primary aim of states in cooperative partnerships is to discourage
those from achieving further.

According to neoliberals, actors with shared goals seek to exploit absolute profits. The
aim of neoliberals is to increase the overall amount of benefit for all parties involved.

Neo-liberals believe that as long as a treaty favors both the state and others, the state
would not mind entering into it. Neo-realists argue that as long as a state believes it is winning
better than the others, it can conclude a deal..

6. importance of military power , a state needs the divergence is:

According to neo-realists, chaos necessitates a state's preoccupation with relative control,

stability, and existence in a dynamic international environment.

Neo-liberals include global welfare or world political economy questions, as well as non-
military topics such as international environmental concerns..

The partnership, or lack thereof, between the United States and Iran is a prime example
of the neo-realist viewpoint on the topic. Before the 1979 revolution, the United States and Iran
had excellent ties. The United States was Iran's most important military ally. With the increase in
oil revenue in the 1960s and 1970s, the Iranian government gained support among the Iranian

Page 16
people. Iran severed all relations with America shortly after the deposition of Iran's pro-
American official.

The condition escalated to the point that the United States launched a missile toward a
commercial Iranian airline. 290 people from six separate countries were killed, and the United
States made no apologies to Iran.

The severed relations between the United States and Iran were most likely caused by the
new Iranian leader's refusal to allow America to stage a coup, as it did in 1953, to install a pro-
American leader.

7. In response to the power, capabilities and strength of other states,

Neo-realists value states' capacities (power) over their intentions and interests.
Capabilities are essential for safety and freedom. According to neo-realists, confusion about the
motives of other states drives states to rely on their own capabilities. (aggressive realism)

Neoliberals place a greater emphasis on intentions and desires. They emphasized the
importance of foreign organizations in maintaining stability within the community, regardless of
a state's military might.

Page 17
 Conclusion

It is a matter of agreement among all paradigms that states are self-serving and want to increase
their income.

The point of difference is the degree of selfishness with which the states behave.

The author believes that all paradigms are incorrect in this respect. Neoliberals err on the side of
idealism, while neorealists err on the side of caution.

Although states see stability as a big motivation, neoliberals believe that when it comes to
cooperation, they would like to sacrifice anything rather than go to war.

According to neo-realists, governments are motivated mostly by their own interests. If it is more
lucrative in the long term to go to war, they will do so regardless of the cost of maintaining
peace.

Neo-realists effectively target the United States' position and use it to demonstrate that their
conclusions are right. In the actions, the United States has proven them correct. This is why it
remains the only superpower, and no country can afford to deal with it. Nothing is more
important to the United States than its own interests.

The United States is said to have promoted Neo-Liberalism in order to minimize international
condemnation of its practices. Many classical liberals believe that the whole purpose of
neoliberalism is to justify the actions of self-serving countries.

The author's first theory was incorrect. The neo-realism paradigm arose in response to the
superiority of liberalism over realism, and neo-liberalism arose in response to the growing
prevalence of the neo-realism paradigm.

The second theory was proved correct and, in the author's opinion, it's usually best to be on the
side of caution.

Page 18
Bibliography

1. Baylis J., Smith S. and Owens P. 2005 . The Globalization of World Politics: An
introduction to international relations. 4th ed. Oxford; New York: Oxford University
Press.

2. Are Two Theories Better than One? A Constructivist Model of the Neorealist-
Neoliberal Debate. Writer- Cameron G. Thies
3. Wikipedia
4. E-International Relations
5. manchester.academia.edu

Page 19