4.

The approaches of classical realism and neo-liberalism have a different take to

international relations which is well evident with their distinct ideologies and
epistemological framework. The major differences between both of these approaches can
be well understood by understanding the origin of these approaches.

Realism gave a convincing explanation of why and how the dreaded World War II began as
this allowed it to gain momentum. According to realism, there are different proponents,
which propose the reflection of “reality” and how it gives an effective explanation of the
different changes taking place in the domain of international politics. One of the famous
preachers of realism was Thomas Hobbes, who described how humans live in an "order less
state of nature", which was perceived as a war against humanity. The proposal of “social
contract” by Hobbs stated how people and rulers could maintain a relative order, which is
well evident in the current system of states where there are a set of punishments when
rules are broken. Realism proponents on the sense of order and security, which is essential
for normal functioning of a state. The view of realists are pessimistic as they view
international relations as a system where conflict and wars are common and there are less
periods of peace. These periods of peace happen when states prep themselves for future
conflicts. The state is considered to be dominant actor in realism as it possess the ultimate
power.

On the other hand, neo liberalism has a different stance to IR. The concept of neo liberalism
popped up after WW 2 as it propounded the concept of "welfare state" which gained an
immediate acceptance as it exhibited dominance in the socio-economic aspects of life. The
concept was further strengthened after there was a disintegration of "Socialist Bloc" and
Soviet Union as the disintegration was often defined on the grounds of state protectionism
and extensive intervention in different aspects of economic life. The views of neo liberalism
are against the motion of state sovereignty as they argue how globalisation increases the
vulnerability of "state system". Globalisation introduced the idea of 'free trade', i.e., trade
without national borders. The free economic system was also favoured by the new liberal
theorists who stated that "the state had a minimal role in the economic life of individuals".
They wanted less protectionism in economic life and 'rollback' of welfare states. The neo
liberalists also stated that "human creativity is affected by state protectionism in economic
matters which brings up inefficiencies and corruption in the socio-political life and can have
damaging effects on the society as well as on the state. The view of economic liberalism for
"minimal states" and how it could foster the world and national trade from the grassroot
level could ultimately revitalise the global financial systems.

To sum up, both the approaches of classical realism and neo liberalism have a different
interpretation of the state system and its impact on the economic diaspora. Given what I
see happening in the world today, I would prefer the approach of neo liberalism over
classical realism. This is because new liberalism stresses on free trade which is important in
the modern day as it develops the world at a holistic level. It also brings about a reduction in
government spending and fosters free market competition which is an immediate need of
today. Neoliberalism also emphasises on globalisation which has brought about a great
revolution in how different economic and social systems interact with each other at the
cosmopolitan level. Although there has been heavy criticism of neo liberalism such as
concentrating power and worsening economic quality, these negative attributes have less
impact on the socio-economic world order.