Neorealism VS Neoliberalism: The “Neo-Neo” Debate

Recognized authority of “neo-realism” or “new realism” (sometimes also called modern “realism,” “structural realism”) is Kenneth Waltz, who in “The Theory of International Politics,” published in 1979, has rethought traditional assumptions of the theory of “realism”. K. Waltz more clearly outlined the impact of the international system on the behavior of states, essentially treating them as elements of the international system. Theoretical direction of “neorealism” was also developed by R. Gilpin, S. Krasner, J. Grieco.

Wide popularity among the scientists of foreign affairs received the work “Neo-realism and its critics”, published in 1986, by Columbia University, edited by Robert Keyohana (Gulson 2011).

Already in 1972, R. Keyohan and J. Nye published a collective work “Transnational Relations and World Politics” (Bonsaver 2008). Five years later, R. Keyohan published the book “Power and interdependence of world politics in transition” These books addressed the growing role of non-state actors, in particular international organizations. In essence, they developed neo-liberal direction, although the R. Keyohan calls his theoretical approach “institutionalism”.

What are the similarities and differences in views of neo-realists and neo-liberals? As already mentioned, the collective work of American neo-realists and neo-liberals, published in 1993 by Columbia University, with editor David Baldwin acting as arbitrator, found six key points that characterize the positions of the two directions:
1) neo-liberals admit that the international system is characterized by certain “anarchy”, but, unlike the neo-realists, who emphasize its fundamental importance, they consider that certain models of interactions between states have been developed (R. Axelrod, R. Keyohan).

2) neo-realists agree with neoliberals that international cooperation is possible, but unlike neoliberals, they say that co-operation is difficult for implementation and more dependent on public authorities.

3) neo-realists insist that cooperation brings relative benefits, and neo-liberals – that it is absolutely beneficial to its participants.

4) proponents of both approaches agree with the priorities of States as a national power and economic well-being, but neo-realists give greater importance to the first priority, and neoliberals – to the second.

5) in contrast to the neo-liberals, neo-realists emphasize more the value of real options and resources of States, than their political intentions.

6) finally, neo-realists acknowledge the influence and impact of international organizations in international relations, but believe that the neo-liberals exaggerate their significance.
Some American authors, such as J. Herz, J. Claude, J. Nye, consider theoretical differences between neo-liberalism and neo-realism as unimportant and even express the viewpoint that they express the same views of the “realist liberalism” (Baldwin 2003). But neo-realists themselves disagree with this point. One of their decisive representatives Professor George Grieco formulated the distinction between “liberal institutionalists” (all the various opponents of the “realism” of the past from Kant and W.Wilson to the behavioral and modernists 60-70-ies.), “neo-liberal institutionalism” (neoliberalism), and “realism”, ie neo-realism (Keohane 1986).

The overall impression is that the neo-liberals, whose views to a large extent reflect the development trends of international relations in recent decades, are more inclined to compromise with their opponents than the neo-realists.

Anyway, it’s hard to disagree “with the conclusion of one of the leaders of the neo-liberal institutionalism: “End of the Cold War caught unawares the academic debate between institutionalists and realists”¦” (Steger 2010).

 

Works Cited

Baldwin, David Allen. Neorealism and neoliberalism: the contemporary debate. 1993. p. 301. Print.
Bonsaver, Guido. Recent Work on Neorealism. Italian Studies, 2008, Volume 63, Number 2, pp. 309-314.
Gulson, Kalervo, Pedroni, Thomas. Neoliberalism, cities and education in the Global South/North. Discourse, May 2011, Volume 32, Number 2, pp. 165-169.
Keohane, Robert Owen. Neorealism and its critics. 1986. p. 145. Print.
Steger, Manfred B., Roy, Ravi K. Neoliberalism: a very short introduction. 2010. pp. 56-57. Print.

 



Leave a Reply