IR 501
The Neo - Neo Debate
Text
Dr. Bezen Balamir Coşkun
bezencoskun@zirve.edu.tr
•
Neo-realism & NeoNeo-realism
and neo-liberalism and
liberalism
the debate between them has
dominated mainstream academic
scholarship in international relations
in the US. Realism, neo-realism and
neo-liberalism have had a profound
impact on US foreign policy. Neorealists dominate the security studies
and neo-liberals focus on political
economy, human rights &
environment.
Neo-realism &. Neo• Neo-realism
and neo-liberalism do
liberalism
not offer totally contrasting images of
the world. Neo-realists stated that
they are concerned with the issues of
survival. They claim that neo-liberals
are too optimistic about the
possibilities for cooperation among
states. Neo-liberals counter with
claims that all states have mutual
interests and can gain from
cooperation.
Neo-realism & Neoliberalism
•
Both are problem solving theories (see Cox) - neither
theory propose major reform or radical
transformations in the international system, they are
system maintainer theories.
•
They are progeny of realism and liberalism
•
biased towards the state, the capitalist market and
the status quo
•
The process of globalization have forced them to
consider similar issues & address new challenges to
international order.
Neo-realism & Neo• They areliberalism
more than theories, they
are paradigms or conceptual
frameworks that define a field of
study, limit our conception of reality,
and define an agenda for research
and policy making.
•
There are considerable differences in
how the scholarly & policy world
define and use labels of neo-realism
& neo-liberalism
Neo-realism in
academia & in politics
•
For most academics neo-realism
refers to Kenneth Waltz’s theory of
international politics (1979). Waltz’s
theory emphasize the importance of
structure of the international system
and its role as the primary
determinant of state behaviour.
Neo-realism in
academia & in politics
•
Some other scholars & and policymakers use neo-realism to describe
a recent and updated version of
realism. In security studies, some
scholars use the terms offensive and
defensive realism when discussing
neo-realism.
Neo-liberalism in
academia & in policy
world
•
In the academic world neo-liberalism
generally refers to neo-liberal
institutionalism. In the policy world
neo-liberalism means the promotion
of free trade or open markets and
Western democratic values and
institutions.
Neo-realism
•
Waltz’s theory of structural realism is
only one version of neo-realism
•
the second group is the modern
realists lead by Joseph Grieco relative & absolute gains
•
the third version is found in security
studies which talk about offensive
and defensive realism.
(1) Structural realism
•
Structural realists do not deny the
importance of unit level explanations,
however they believe that the effects
of structure must be considered.
•
Structure is defined by the ordering
principle of the international system,
which is anarchy, and the distribution
of capabilities across the units, which
are states (Waltz)
Structural realism
•
The structure of the international system
shapes foreign policy choices.
•
For neo-realists (structural realists in particular)
power is more than the accumulation of military
resources and the ability to use this power to
coerce and control other states. Neo-realists
see power as the combined capabilities of a
state. Power gives a state a position in
international system and shapes the state
behavior.
Structural realism
•
Neo-realists suggest that anarchy defines the
system. All states are functionally similar units,
they all experience the same constraints
presented by anarchy and strive to maintain
their position in the system.
•
Neo-realists explain any difference in policy by
differences in power and capabilities.
(2) Relative &
absolute gains
•
Joseph Grieco (1988) focuses on the concepts
of relative and absolute gains. He claims that
states are interested in increasing their power
and influence (absolute gains), thus will
cooperate with other actors in the system to
increase their capabilities. Grieco claims that
states are also concerned with how much power
and influence other states might achieve
(relative gains).
•
Relative & absolute
gains
This is the key difference between
neo-realism and neo-liberalism . Neoliberals claim that cooperation does
not work when states fail to follow the
rules and cheat to secure their
national interests. Neo-realists claim
that there are two barriers to
international cooperation: cheating &
relative gains of other actors.
Relative & absolute
gains
•
The likelihood of states abandoning
international cooperative efforts is increased if
participants see other states gaining more from
the arrangement.
•
The fundamental question asked by Grieco is
not whether all parties gain from cooperation,
but who will gain more if we cooperate.
(3) Security Studies &
Neo-realism
•
Offensive neo-realists accept most of Waltz’s
ideas and good portion of the assumptions of
traditional realism.
•
Defensive neo-realists suggest that our
assumptions of relations with other states
depend on whether they are friends or
enemies. Exp. When dealing with the EU the
assumption of the US leaders are more akin to
those promoted by neo-liberals.
•
Security Studies &
Neo-realism
John Mearsheimer (1990, 1994) who
is an offensive realist, suggests that
relative power and not absolute
power is most important to states. He
suggests that leaders of countries
should pursue security policies that
weaken their potential enemies and
increase their power relative to all
others.
Security Studies &
Neo-realism
•
Offensive realists were very critical of
the Bush’s decision to go to war in
Iraq. This war was unnecessary
because the containment of Iraq was
working effectively and there was no
compelling strategic rationale for this
war.
Security Studies &
Neo-realism
•
Defensive neo-realists like Robert
Jervis & Jack Snyder claim that the
cost of war clearly outweigh the
benefits.
•
Defensive neo-realists see conflict as
unnecessary only in a subset of
situations ie. economic relations.
Core Assumptions of
Neo-Realism
•
States & other actors interact in an anarchic
environment. There is no central authority to
enforce rules and norms or protect the interests
of the larger community
•
The structure of the system is a major
determinant of actor behavior
•
States are self-interest oriented, and an
anarchic and competitive system pushes them
to favor self-help over cooperation
Core Assumptions of
Neo-Realism
• States
are rational actors, selecting
strategies to minimize losses
•
The most critical problem presented
by anarchy is survival
•
States see all other states as
potential enemies and threats to their
national security. The distrust and
fear creates a security dilemma, and
this motivates the state policies.
Neo-liberalism
•
David Baldwin (1993) identifies 4
varieties of liberalism that influence
contemporary international relations:
commercial, republican, sociological
and liberal institutionalism
Neo-liberalism
•
Commercial liberalism advocates
free trade and market or capitalist
economy
•
Republican Liberalism states that
democratic states are more inclined
to respect the rights of their citizens
and less likely to go war with other
democratic states.
Neo-liberalism
•
Sociological liberalism focuses on
the notion of community & the
process of interdependence.
Neo-liberalism
•
Liberal institutionalism or neo-liberal
institutionalism is considered as the most
convincing challenge to Realist and neo-realist
thinking.
•
The roots of this version of liberalism found in
1940’s - 1950’s functional integration models.
•
The 2nd generation of liberal institutionalists
emerged in 1960s to explain the EU integration
Neo-liberalism
•
The 3rd generation of liberal
institutional scholarship was the
transnationalism and the complex
interdependence of 1970s (Keohane
& Nye 1972, 1977). They argued that
the world had become more
pluralistic in terms of actors involved
in international interactions and they
become more dependent on each
other.
Neo-liberalism
•
Complex interdependence has 4 characteristics:
•
(1) increasing linkages among states & non-state
actors
•
(2) a new agenda of international issues with no
distinction between low and high politics
•
(3) a recognition of multiple channels for interaction
among actors
•
(4) the decline of the efficacy of military force as a tool
of statecraft
Neo-liberalism
•
Complex interdependence scholars
suggest that globalization represents
an increase in linkages and channels
for interaction and interconnections.
Neo-liberalism
•
Neo-liberal institutionalists see
institutions as mediator and the
means to achieve cooperation
among actors in the system.
•
Their current research focus on the
issues of global governance
Neo-liberalism
•
For neo-liberal institutionalists the
focus on mutual interests extend
beyond trade & development
•
Successful responses to security
threats require the creation of
regional and global regimes that
promote cooperation and
coordination
Neo-liberalism
•
Neo-liberals support cooperative
multilateralism and critical of
unilateral and preemptive use of
force as the US did in 2002 against
Iraq. Neo-liberals argue that the USled war with Iraq did more to
undermine the legitimacy of global
and regional institutions.
•
Core assumptions of
neo-liberalism
states are key actors, but not the only significant actors.
States are rational or instrumental actors, always seeking
to maximize their interests
•
In this competitive environment states seek to maximize
absolute gains through cooperation. Rational behavior
leads states to see value in cooperative behavior.
•
The greatest obstacle to successful cooperation is noncompliance or cheating by states.
•
cooperation is never without problems, but states will
shift loyalty and resources to institutions if these are seen
as mutually beneficial.
Neo-liberalism
•
The neo-liberal institutional
perspective is more relevant in issueareas where states have mutual
interests.
•
Neo
Neo
Debate
The debate between neo-realists
and neo-liberals has dominated
mainstream IR scholarship since mid
1980s.
•
Two major journals “International
Organization” and “International
Security” led the debate by
publishing articles that address the
relative merits of each theory and its
value in explaining the international
politics.
Neo - Neo Debate
•
The neo - neo debate is not a debate between
two polar opposite worldviews. They share an
epistemology, focus on similar questions, and
agree on a number of assumptions about
international politics
•
Neo-liberal institutionalism and neo-realism
study different worlds of international politics.
Neo-realists focus on security and military
issues (high politics issue-area). neo-liberals
focus on political economy, environmental
issues, human rights issues (low politics).
Neo - Neo Debate
•
Neo-realists are more cautious about cooperation and
remind us that the world is still a competitive place where
self-interest rules.
•
Neo-liberals believe that the states and other actors can
be persuaded to cooperate if they are convinced that all
states will comply
•
This debate does not discuss many important issues that
challenge some of the core assumptions of each theory.
Fex., neo-realism cannot exğlain foreign policy behaviour
that challenges the norm of national interest over human
interests. Neither theory addresses the impact of learning
on the foreign policy behavior of states.
Neo - Neo Debate
•
Globalization has contributed to a
shift in political activity away from the
state. Transnational social
movements have forced states to
address critical international issues
and in several situations that have
supported the establishment of
institutions that promote further
cooperation, and challenge the power
of states.
The main features of
the neo-neo debate
•
Both agree that the international
system is anarchic. Neo-realists say
that anarchy puts more constraints
on foreign policy, and that neoliberals minimize the importance of
survival as the goal of state
The main features of
the neo-neo debate
•
Neo-realists believe that international
cooperation will not happen unless
states make it happen. Neo-liberals
believe that cooperation is easy to
achieve in areas where states have
mutual interests.
The main features of
the neo-neo debate
•
Neo-liberals think that actors with
common interests try to maximize
absolute gain. Neo-realists claim that
neo-liberals overlook the importance
of relative gains.
The main features of
the neo-neo debate
•
Neo-realists state that anarchy
requires states to be preoccupied
with relative power, security, and
survival in a competitive international
system. Neo-liberals are more
concerned with economic welfare or
international political economy issues
and other non-military issue areas.
The main features of
neo-neo
• the
Neo-realists
emphasizedebate
the
capabilities (power) of state over the
intensions and interests of states
Capabilities are essential for security
and independence. Neo-realists
claim that uncertainity about the
intensions of other states forces
states to focus on their capabilities.
Neo-liberals emphasize intentions
and preferences.
The main features of
the neo-neo debate
•
Neo-liberals see institutions and
regimes as significant forces in
international relations. Neo-realists
state that neo-liberals exaggerate the
impact of regimes and institutions on
state behavior.
Food for thought
•
What assumptions about international politics
are shared by neo-liberals and neo-realists?
•
If we study international politics as defined by
neo-realists and neo-liberal institutionalists
what are the issues and controversies we
would focus on? What is left out of our study of
international politics?