Professional Documents
Culture Documents
More than just theories, neo-realism and neo- __.a gbemlism represent
paradigms or conceptual frame- _5 15works that shape individuals
images of the world and influence research priorities and policy debates
and Zchoices.
There are several versions of neo-realism or neo- liberalism.
Neo-liberalism in the academic world refers most often to neo-liberal
lnstitutionalism. in the policy world, hep-liberalism is identitied with the
promotion of capitalism and Western democratic values and institutions.
Rational choice approaches and game theory have been integrated into
neo-realist and neo-iiberal theory to explain policy choices and the
behaviour of states in conflict and cooperative situations. These present
more rigorous and scientific versions of the theories.
Neo-realist and nee-liberal theories are status-quo oriented problemsolving theories. They share many assumptions about actors, values,
issues, and power arrangements in the international system. Neo-realists
and neo-liberals study different worlds. Neo-realists study security issues
and are concerned with issues of power and survival. Neo-liberals study
political economy and focus on cooperation and institutions.'
Neo-realism
Kenneth Waltzs theory of structural Realism is only one version of neorealism. A second group of neo-realists, represented by the scholarly contributions of Joseph Grieco (1988a and 1988b), have integrated Waltzs ideas
with the ideas of more traditional Realists such as Hans Morgenthau, Raymond
Aron, Stanley Hoffmann, and Robert Gilpin to construct a contemporary or
modern Realist profile. A third version of neo-realism is found in security studies.
Here scholars talk about offensive and defensive Realists. These versions of neo
realism are briefly reviewed in the next few pages.
Structural realism
Waltzs neo-realism is distinctive from traditional or classical Realism in a
number of ways. First, Realism is primarily an inductive theory. For example,
Hans Morgenthau would explain international politics by looking at the actions
and interactions of the states in the system. Thus, the decision by Pakistan and
India to test nuclear weapons would be explained by looking at the influence of
military leaders in both states and the long-standing differences com- pounded
by their geographic proximity. Ali of these explanations are unit or bottom-up
explanations.
NeoRealists, such as Waltz, do not deny the import- ance of unit-level
explanations; however, they believe that the effects of structure must be considered. According to Waltz, structure is defined by the ordering principle of the
international system, which is anarchy, and the distribution of capabilities across
units, which are states. Waltz also assumes that there is no differentiation of
function between different units.
The structure of the international system shapes all foreign policy choices.
For a nee-realist, a better explanation for India and Pakistans nuclear testing
The main signpost that helps political realism to find its way through the
landscape of intemational politics is the concept of interest dehned in terms of
power. .. . We assume that states- men think and act in terms of interest defined
as power, and the evidence of history bears that assumption out. (1962: 5)
ers still believe that they can resolve their differences with force.
\ lation of military resources and the ability to use this power to coerce and
control other states in the
: system. Waltz and other neorealists see power as the combined capabilities
of a state. States are dif- ferentiated in the system by their power and not by
their function. Power gives a state a place or pos- ition in the international
system and that shapes the states behaviour. During the cold war, the USA
superpowers. Neo-Realists would say that such posi- tioning explains the
similarities in their behaviour. The distribution of power and any dramatic
changes in that distribution of power help to explain the structure of the
international system. Specifically, states will seek to maintain their position or
place- ment in the system. The end of the cold war and the disintegration of the
Soviet empire upset the bal- ance of power and, in the eyes of many neo-realists,
increased uncertainty and instability in the inter- national system. Waltz concurs
with traditional Real- ists when he states that the central mechanism for order in
the system is balance of power. The renewed emphasis on the importance of the
UN and NATO and their interventions in crisis areas around the world may be
indicative of the major powers current search for order in the international
system. Waltz would challenge neo-liberal Institutionalists who believe that we
can manage the processes of globalization merely by building effective international institutions. He would argue that their
effectiveness depends on the support of major powers.
The structure of the international system shapes all foreign policy choices. For a
nee-realist, a better explanation for India and Pakistans nuclear testing would be
anarchy or the lack of a common power or central authority to enforce rules and
maintain order in the system. In a competitive system, this condi- tion creates a
need for weapons to survive. Addition- ally, in an anarchic system, states with
greater power tend to have greater influence.
The main signpost that helps political realism to find its way through the
landscape of intemational politics is the concept of interest dehned in terms of
power. .. . We assume that states- men think and act in terms of interest defined
as power, and the evidence of history bears that assumption out. (1962: 5)
ers still believe that they can resolve their differences with force.
\ lation of military resources and the ability to use this power to coerce and
control other states in the
: system. Waltz and other neorealists see power as the combined capabilities
of a state. States are dif- ferentiated in the system by their power and not by
their function. Power gives a state a place or pos- ition in the international
system and that shapes the states behaviour. During the cold war, the USA
superpowers. Neo-Realists would say that such posi- tioning explains the
similarities in their behaviour. The distribution of power and any dramatic
changes in that distribution of power help to explain the structure of the
international system. Specifically, states will seek to maintain their position or
place- ment in the system. The end of the cold war and the disintegration of the
Soviet empire upset the bal- ance of power and, in the eyes of many neo-realists,
increased uncertainty and instability in the inter- national system. Waltz concurs
with traditional Real- ists when he states that the central mechanism for order in
the system is balance of power. The renewed emphasis on the importance of the
UN and NATO and their interventions in crisis areas around the world may be
indicative of the major powers current search for order in the international
system. Waltz would challenge neo-liberal Institutionalists who believe that we
can manage the processes of globalization merely by building effective international institutions. He would argue that their
control the arms race. China, a major power and a large country, would most
likely pursue a unilateral strategy of increas-