Dougherty & Pfaltzgraff Jr.
Contending Theories of International Relations
Chapter 2:
From Realist to Neorealist and
Neoclassical Realist Theory
Theory of International Relations course
presentation, 10/03/2012
Instructor: Prof. Yu Jen Kuo
Student: Neza Lostrek
Outline
• Theoretical foundations
–
–
–
–
–
The Utopian-Realist Debate
The Neorealist-Neoliberal Debate
Antecedents of the Realist Theory
Power and International Behavior
Realist IR Theory. The Mid-Twentieth Century (Hans J.
Morgenthau)
• Neorealist Theory
– Neorealist Theory
– Neoclassical Realist Theory
– Recent Realist Thought and International institution
• Realism, Neorealism, Neoclassical Realist Theory:
Limitations and Contributions
Theoretical foundations
Realist theory held a dominant position in the study of IR in the
years between the end of the WW2 into the early 1980
• Classical realist theory
– International systems level of analysis and the state, or unit actor level
of analysis
• Neorealist-structural realist theory
– International system level of analysis, addresses the nature of
international politics
• Neoclassical realist
– The state, or the unit, level of analysis
Neorealist and Neoclassical realist theory build upon the
intellectual tradition of classical realist theory
Theoretical foundations
• Classical realist theory – key assumptions
1. states as key factors
2. International politics conflictual
3. States exist in a condition of legal sovereignty
4. States are unitary actors (domestic, foreign policy
separated)
5. States are rational actors (national interest)
6. Power the most important concept in explaining state
behavior
• Two essential questions:
– What accounts for state behavior in general and in particular
for the survival of states?
– What produces and accounts for the dynamics of the
international system?
Theoretical foundations
The Utopian-Realist Debate (according to Edward Hallett
Carr)
• Utopian theory guided the development in IR theory in
years between the two World Wars, and especially in
the Anglo-American setting
• Utopians intellectual descendants of
– 18th century Enlightement optimism
• Human conduct shaped by environing circumstances
– 19th century Liberalism
• Harmony of interests at the level of the collectivity
– 20th century Wilsonian idealism
• International system based on representative governments (from
national self-determination to democratic peace theory)
Theoretical foundations
The Utopian-Realist Debate (according to E. H. Carr)
• Realist stressed power and interest rather than
ideals in IR and admit that power relationships
are often cloaked in moral and legal terms:
– Carr notes that the utopian theory of that era merely
justified the interests of the dominant Englishspeaking status-quo powers
• Sound political theories contain elements of
utopianism and realism
Theoretical foundations
• The Neorealist-Neoliberal Debate
• a discord on the extent to which development of
institutions can transcend the structural
characteristics of the anarchic international
system
– Robert Keohane: “realists and institutionalists agree
that without basis either of hegemonic dominance or
common interests, international institutions cannot
long survive.”
• The neorealist-neoliberal debate has moved away
from the sharp delineation to an effort toward
synthesis
Theoretical foundations
Antecedents of Realist Theory
• Thucydides (400 b.c.):
– “what made (Peloponnesian) war inevitable was the growth of Atenian power and the
fear which this caused in Sparta”
• Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1557)
– to ensure state’s survival, ruler’s moral standards must be different from those of the
individual – is concerned with power – politics as clash of interests – pessimistic view of
human nature
• Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
– Without a strong sovereign, chaos and violence follow; there is little prospect for
changing human behavior – paradoxically closer to proponents of world government,
yet, doubted the possibility of establishing the world empire
• Georg Hegel (1770-1831)
– State has an “individual totality” that develops according to its own laws – the state’s
highest duty lies in its own preservation
• Max Weber (1864-1920)
– politics characterized by a struggle for power – every big political community a potential
aspirant to prestige – every political structure prefers weak rather than strong neighbors
– The ethical problem: the absolute ethicsof conviction cannot be separated from an
understanding of consequences (ethic of responsibility)
Theoretical foundations
Power and International Behavior
• Power – problem of conceptualization:
– Nicholas J. Spykman: power is he ability to move the
individual or the human collectivity in some desired
fashion, through “persuasion, purchase, barter and
coercion”
– Arnold Wolfers: power is an ability to move others by the
threat or infliction of deprivations, influence is the ability
to do so through promises of grants of benefits
– Robert Gilpin and Kenneth Waltz: the power of a state
consists of capabilities (military, economic, technological,
etc.)
– Charles P. Kindleberger: strength is a means that exists
even in an absence of its use for some goal. power is the
use of strength, for a particular purpose; strategy itself
becomes a capability
Theoretical foundations
Power and International Behavior
• Power is dynamic and changing, rather than static in nature; entities best able to
adjust to change are likely to possess power and to make most effective use of it in
support of posited goals.
• interdependence connotes the ability of one state to influence another in some
way
• The level of dependency is determined either by the opportunity costs of
foregoing the object at issue or by the extent to which dependent state can
substitute another supplier
• James A. Caporaso: the nature of dependence includes:
– The magnitude of dependent state’s interest in a desire for a good
– The extent of the control of the good in question by the party exerting influence
– The ability of the dependent state to find an alternative source
•
Michael P. Sullivan:
– major difficulty arises from the need to specify the type of international behavior to be
explained by reference to power as the key explanatory variable – we may need an alternative
explanation
– Large number of national level measurable elements: population, territory, resources, levels of
education and skills, GDP, etc.)
– Systems level measurements: alliance and non-governmental organization membership and
the distribution of capabilities throughout the system as a basis for giving operational meaning
to bipolarity and multipolarity
Theoretical foundations
Realist IR Theory: The Mid-Twentieth Century
• Hans J. Morgenthau:
– 1. political relations governed by objective rules deeply rooted
in human nature; society can only be improved by first
understanding these rules and then by basing public policy on
that knowledge
– 2. political leaders “think and act in terms of interest defined as
power”
– 3. national interest is defined by national survival
– 4. nation-states are governed by a morality that differs from the
morality of individuals in their nation personal relationships
– 5. moral aspirations of a particular are not identified with the
universal moral laws - this enables us to judge other nations as
we judge our own
– 6. the autonomy of the political sphere; political actions must be
judged by political criteria
Theoretical foundations
Realist IR Theory: The Mid-Twentieth Century
• Hans J. Morgenthau:
– A political policy seeks either to :
1.
2.
3.
preserve status-quo (e.g. Monroe Doctrine, treaties concluded at the
end of wars)
achieve Imperialistic expansion (could be adopted as a result of victory,
defeat, or the weakening of other states, and by military or cultural
and economic means)
gain prestige (diplomacy and display of force: in order to achieve such
a reputation for power that the actual use of power becomes
unnecessary)
– Conditions for international peace
• pursuit of national interests not essential to national survival contributes
to international conflict (ideologically motivated foreign policies)
• The balance of power (1. a policy aimed at a certain state of affairs / 2.
the state of affairs itself, 3. an approximately equal distribution of
power/4. any distribution of power); - it is not the balance of power itself
but the international consensus on which it is built that preserves
international peace
• Diplomacy plays crucial role in the preservation of peace
Neorealist Theory
• Power remains key variable, although less as an
end in itself than as a necessary and inevitable
component of a political relationship
• Neorealist theory draws from classical realism as
well as links conceptually other theoretical efforts
– Kinderman’s Munich School of Neorealism &
constellation analysis
– Kenneth Waltz ‘s system constructs
– Robert Gilpin’s refinement of classical realist theory
– Buzan, Jones and Little’s concept of deep structure
Neorealist Theory
• Gottfried-Karl Kinderman’s Munich School of Neorealism &
constellation analysis
• Constellation analysis is an integrated multimethod system of
inquiry,
• Designed to
• explain the behavior of individual actors within an international
constellation
• analyze multidimensional patterns of interaction within a
polycentric setting consisting of two or more monocentric
action systems
• Posits politics not power as its key concept
• Its basic premise is the existence of an international system
consisting of interactive elements that are to be studied by
reference to concepts derived from classical realist theory, but also
based on variables drawn from cross-cultural comparative analysis
Neorealist Theory
• Gottfried-Karl Kinderman’s Munich School of Neorealism &
constellation analysis
• Constellation analysis includes six categories for inquiry and
analysis:
•
•
•
•
•
•
1. system and decision, including linkages between domestic and foreign
policy and decision making
2. perception and reality, including the subjective images of decision
makers
3. interest and power, including how decision makers define the role of
power in achieving foreign policy goals, based on conceptions of national
interest
4. norm and advantage, encompassing how legal, moral or ideological
postulates shape the conduct of units of the international system and of
systemic structures themselves
5. structures and interdependence (including the effects of structures on
levels of interdependence and overall interactive patterns
6. cooperation and conflict, or how all of the aforementioned categories
shape the strategies of actors toward other actors and lead to patterns of
cooperation, conflict, or neutrality
Neorealist Theory
Robert Gilpin
• Attempts to refine the rationality assumption of
the classical realist theory
• States engage in cost-benefit calculations
• Costs of changing form the principal barriers to
disruptive or destabilizing action
• Distribution of power principal means for
controlling the behavior of the states
• Dominant states maintain a network of
relationships within the system for this purpose
Neorealist Theory
Kenneth Waltz & structural realism
• Structure connotes the way in which the parts are arranged
• Structures are either hierarchically (states) or anarchically (international
order) organized
• The more hierarchical the system, the greater the differentiation of
functions
• Structure is defined by the distribution of capabilities among the units
( necessary emergence of a balance of power)
• Structure is based on the fact that units differently juxtaposed and
combined behave differently and in interacting produce different
outcomes
• Structure is a variable conditioning political behavior
• If structure defines the arrangements of the parts, what accounts for
change in the structure? – structures emerge from the coexistence of the
primary political units of a given era
• structural realism does not address the reductionist question of how and
why such political units come into existence at a particular time in history
Neorealist Theory
Robert Gilpin
• In deciding in foreign policies that would produce change in the
international system states do not attempt to achieve one goal at the
sacrifice of others but instead make trade-offs with various objectives
(satisficing approach)
• International systems undergo three types of change
– Alteration in the types of entities that compose a particular international
system (systems change): a system changes as the cost-benefit ratio of
membership in the existing system is altered
– A change deriving from the components within which change takes place (rise
and fall of the powerful states that shape patterns of international interactions
– Change in nature of its members’ political, economic and sociocultural
interactions
• A system in which the cost of expansion equals or exceeds its perceived
benefits is in equilibrium
• There is a tendency for the economic cost of maintaining the status quo to
increase faster than the economic capacity to support it
• Historically, war has been the primary means by which the issue of
disequilibrium has been resolved
Neorealist Theory
Critique of Kennet Waltz’s structuralism
• Waltz’ neorealist theory sparked a debate that
has dominated the IR theoretical landscape since
the early 1980s
• Waltz has neglected both the role of the units
and the impact of the structure of the units
themselves on the behavioral patterns of their
members
• Theory of international politics must include the
domestic politics of the units, to the extent that
they shape foreign policy
Neorealist Theory
Barry Buzan, Charles Jones and Richard Little
• Rules, regimes and international institutions need to be brought into the
definition of international political structure
• deep structure
– Political structure encompasses anarchy as well as hierarchy
– If units are similar, their relationship is based on sovereignty
– In international organizations units exist in a hierarchical setting and
undertake some government-like functions
• Deep structure includes rules and norms (international political system)
• The state is not exclusive basis for government (additional sectors which
exercise control by coercion are economic, societal as well as strategic)
• how states choose to use their capabilities is not the same as how actors
are ranked in the system structure
• The nature of unit capabilities affects system structure (technology and
shared norms and organizations
• The systemic dimension of interaction forms a component of a broadened
neorealist– structural-realist theory
Neoclassical Realist Theory
• An effort to bridge domestic and international politics
and specifically to relate domestic structures to
international structures
• States engage in international strategies termed
external extraction (accumulation of resources from
beyond the state borders) and external validation (use
of leaders’ authoritative status within the international
community to enhance their domestic status)
• Foreign policy is the result of complex patterns of
interaction within and between the both levels of
competition and cooperation
Neoclassical Realist Theory
• states may adopt various forms of cooperative or conflict
policies, the main question is what explains their
propensity to opt for one such strategy or another?
• International systems structure is dependent on a host of
other factors located within the units themselves (the ways
in which states develop and engage their respective
capabilities, the strategies they formulate for survival, the
mechanisms by which they make decisions, the collective
perceptions about the outside world, the estimates about
their own relative capabilities, and the historical, cultural,
and geographical circumstances upon which they shape
their responses to external challenges)
• Neoclassical realists, who downplay the international
systems level fall within what is termed Innenpolitik
Recent realist Thought and
International Institutions
• Joseph Grieco: for small and mini states voting in
international institutions the only way to exert
influence on the global scene
• Contingent realism (Charles L. Glaser): international
institutions play an important role in reducing or
minimizing the security dilemma
• Institutions reflect the preferences of actors
• To the extent that domestic preferences shape the
foreign policy of democratic states, we come close to
the democratic peace theory
• Recent neoclassical realist theory contributes to a
synthesis between neorealist/structural realist and
neoliberal institutionalist theories
Realism, Neorealism, Neoclassical realist Theory:
Limitations and Contributions
• Limitations: fractured foundation undermines realism’s
structural integrity
– Self-help in the form of power balancing
• History shows that other strategies were more likely to be employed
as a response to crucial threats to states’ security
– The concept of national interest
• Too obvious and unilluminating
• It is difficult to give it an operational meaning as it depends on how a
specific national identity is constructed
– Realism draws from the Eurocentric system of the past and
cannot be applied to contemporary global international system
– It is normative in terms of prescribing believingly appropriate
actions to statesmen
– Too much emphasis is placed on power, which subsumes various
very different categories of variables , to the relative exclusion
of other important variables
– Reduces politics to rational interpretations
Realism, Neorealism, Neoclassical realist Theory:
Limitations and Contributions
• Contributions:
– Realism ranks as the most important attempt thus far to
isolate and focus on a key variable in political behavior and
to develop a theory of international relations
– Robert O. Keohane: “Realism provides a good starting
point for the analysis of cooperation and discord, since its
tautological structure and pessimistic assumptions about
individual and state behavior serve as barriers against
wishful thinking.”
– It should be viewed less as a coherent theoretical position
than as a site of a great many contested claims (Walker)
– As it addresses body of issues, crucially important to
international relations, its impact has been pervasive and
enduring