Chapter 7 – Neo Realism vs. Neo Liberalism
Table of contents
1. Neo Realism
A. Structural Realism
B. Modern Realism
i.
Absolute gain
ii.
Relative gain
C. Security Study
i.
Offensive Realism
ii.
Defensive Realism
iii.
Defensive Realism vs. Neo Liberalism
2. Neo Liberalism
A. Commercial Liberalism
B. Republican Liberalism
C. Sociological Liberalism
D. Liberal Institutionalism
3. Neo-Neo Debate
A. Similarity
B. Dissimilarity
C. Dissimilarity of Globalization
1. Neo Realism
A. Structural Realism (Waltz): 3 Major Differences with Traditional Realism
i. Difference of premise
Traditional Realism induces IR theories through unit-based observations while
Structural Realism adds the analysis of anarchical structure on top of it.
(example): Pakistan v. India nuclear test
Traditional Realism would focus on local military leaders, geopolitical
aspects, and any other micro-level analysis. SR would focus on nuclear
superpower structure, nuclear regime, and any other macro-level, anarchical
analysis
ii. Difference of viewpoint of power
Traditional Realism says power is everything to get influence, security, and
national interest. They say among different kinds of power such as economy
and technology, military power is the most prominent one. Structural Realism
says Traditional Realism’s view is most important, but they also acknowledge
the term of “combined capabilities of a state”. Such diverse kinds of power will
differentiate a nation’s role, thus letting the states act according to their
relative power. Such automatic achievement of balance of power helps explain
the international structure of power.
(example) Structural Realism would see the end of the cold war as the
breakdown of balance of power structure, and such instability caused
uncertainty in the world system.
iii. Difference of viewpoint on anarchy
Traditional Realism says anarchy is merely a condition of the world system,
but Structural Realism says anarchy is the world system itself and defines the
whole gamut of international politics.
(example) Structural Realism would say, in a situation where national security
is threatened, each nation would pursue different strategy. Belgium could
join NATO or any other collective institutions to secure their national safety,
but China on the other hand, would be able to defend themselves without
any other nation states’ help
B. Modern Realism (Grieco)
i. Absolute gain
The amount of welfare/power/influence that could be achieved through
cooperation.
ii. Relative gain
The difference of welfare/power/influence between nation states that could
bring changes to the balance of power
(example) Abolishment of landmines will bring increased welfare to the
signatories, but at the same time it strengthens the power of nonsignatories of the treaty.
C. Security Studies
Background
- US faced new threats in the wake of 1990s and IR scholars suggested a
more pragmatic, policy-oriented realism
i. Offensive Realism (Mearsheimer)
-
Incompatibility of national interest will ALWAYS result in competition
and conflict.
-
It was very risky of US to reduce the military budget after the cold war.
-
Waltz stated national security could be achieved through reasonable
amount of power, but Mearsheimer argued that it only takes one more
stronger nation to jeopardize your national security.
ii. Defensive Realism
-
Offensive Realism’s viewpoint is too radical. It always depends with
whom you’re dealing with, and if that is a friend, the conflict is
avoidable.
-
The world leaders know that the cost of war outweighs the benefits
-
War is unlikely in this democratic era, except for some extreme
militaristic or ethno-nationalistic nations
-
Security instructions will operate to mediate in this interdependent
world
-
iii. Defensive Realism vs. Neo Liberalism
Similarity
They both say that security institutions will help us avoid war through
multilateralism
Dissimilarity
1. Conflict is unavoidable
a. Under the presence of aggressive/expansionary states,
b. If there is an inevitable conflict of national interest
2. It is never easy to assess what your neighboring state is planning under
the table
3. Mutual interest always faces non-compliance and cheating
2. Neo Liberalism
A. Commercial Liberalism: a better world through free trade
B. Republican Liberalism: democratic peace theory
C. Sociological Liberalism: International civil society
D. Liberal Institutionalism
Background
- This is an era of complex interdependence (Keohane & Nye)
- Pluralistic world, complex interactions, and dependant actors
- Functional and regional integration to form institutions & tackle global
issues
Key Arguments
1. State is significant, but not one of the kind in terms of actors
2. Absolute gain > Relative gain
3. Greatest obstacle is non compliance and cheating
4. Shifting of loyalty occurs in mutually beneficial situation
5. Linkage among states & non-state actors
6. New agendas that require both high & low politics
7. Multiple cross-border communication channels
8. Decline of the efficacy of military force
Note
-
Neo Liberalism criticizes Neo Realism saying that Neo Realism excessively
focuses on conflict and competition
-
Neo Liberalism is researching on global governance and institutions
-
Neo Liberalism mainly focuses on trade and development, terrorism, WMD,
drug trafficking, pandemics…
-
Neo Liberalism is a field of mutual welfare, and is far from any zero-sum
game argument.
3. Neo-neo debate
A. Similarity
Epistemology & assumption
A. Both are ‘System Maintainer Theory’
 They both ask the same question of “What brings disruption to the
status quo, and how to get rid of it?” unlike other theories such as
Marxism.
B. Assumption: Anarchic realm of IR
 No common authority
 Unilateralism and self-help
B. Dissimilarity
Neo Realism
Neo Liberalism
Security
Political Economy
Relative Power
Environment
Military
Human Rights
Survival
Common Good
On
Relative gain is more
Absolute gain is more
Absolute/Relative
important
important
Focus on national
Create institutions to
security through
manage international
military power
matters
Criticizes each
Neo Liberalism
Neo Realism minimizes the
other..
underestimates the
importance of int’l
hardship of survival
interdependence,
Area of Study
Gains
Foreign Policy
globalization and regime
On Cooperation
Hard to achieve,
Easy to achieve in the
difficult to maintain,
presence of an mutual
decisive power
interest
remains in state
Intentions > Capability
Capability > Intention
On Institutions and
Low impact
Facilitates cooperation
Regime
on state’s behavior
and promote agenda
Relative power
Bridge between state &
outweighs absolute
non-state actors
gains of welfare
C. Dissimilarity on Globalization
i. Neo Realism’s argument
- Globalization and subsequent interacting impact on states is still low
- Globalization does not mitigate the anarchic nature of this world
- Relative power still outweighs absolute power, and nation states will not
cooperate in the face of critical moments
Their concern;
A. Global inequality poses a security threat; the gap between the rich and
the poor could result in massive revolt in the future.
B. Challenges sovereignty; The advent of internet and freer flow of
information made it hard for the elitist decision makers to make their own
choices on national issues, and now they have to read the faces of other
non-state actors. A nation’s sovereignty is not what it used to be 20 years
ago.
ii. Neo Liberalism’s argument
Commercial Liberalism
They advocate a free market with no boundaries of any kinds, and such
promotion of free market will result in proliferation of global rules and
norms, resulting in a safer, richer, and more democratic world.
Sociological Liberalism
They agree that Liberalism will cause good actions, but as we can tell from
their name, Sociological Liberalism says the governments or institutions
should look carefully over for a more even spread of capital. This is
because they foresee the possible accumulation of instability or conflict if
economic inequality persists for long.