Neo-Realism and Neo-Institutionalism
1. Compare Waltz and Keohane/Nye and discuss differences and similarities between them with regard to how they understand political rule, international relations and political actors.
When dealing with theories on international relations, we would always hit the classical debate between Neo-realism and Neoliberal-institutionalism. The classical debate about how to perceive the structure of the international system and the behaviour in the international arena is of great importance. Based on Waltz’s Neo-realist view and on Keohane/Nye’s Neoliberal-Institutionalism an attempt to compare and discuss similarities/differences between the respective theories are made with regard on how they view political rule, international relations and political actors.
Kenneth Waltz:
According to Waltz’s Neo-realist thought, there are three main points in defining the international political structure:
- the ordering principle, or the `deep structure’
- the character or differentiation of the units
- the distribution of capabilities, or the `surface structure’. (Hobson 2000:20)
The ordering principle deals with two types of principles: the “anarchy” and the “hierarchy”. According to Waltz this distinction is also a distinction between the national and the international structure, where national structures would be dominated by hierarchy while the international structure would be dominated by anarchy (Waltz 1979:113). Waltz argues that in national structure individuals or units are organized in a hierarchical manner, where specialization occurs among individuals, this leads to cooperation and interdependence. However this harmony of interdependence is only achievable because the issue of security is dealt with by the state. On the contrary, in international systems where anarchy prevails, the states (units) have to adapt the notion of “self-help” in order to be secure and maintain their existence, since no higher authority exists above states to handle the security issue. The main point here is that states cannot specialize but have to be independent and competitive. Waltz point out that states are free to look after their interests, however they are perpetually insecure, since war is always a possible threat in the background (Hobson 2000:21). Waltz draws upon Adam Smith’s discussion about the market, and the insurance of reproduction of the overall society by the “invisible hand” based on the competition of selfish individuals. Likewise for Waltz the competition between selfish states in an anarchic system reproduces the anarchic system by a similar “invisible hand”.
The character or differentiation of units deals with the characteristics of the units (states). According to Waltz, in a hierarchal system, the units (Individuals) are differentiated according to function, they are not alike since they specialize in different all sorts of function and consequently would engage in an interdependence system with cooperation. This sort of system characterizes the system within states to Waltz. On the other hand, in an international system that is characterized by anarchy, units (states) are minimally differentiated in terms of function, they all perform the same function (Hobson 2000:22). Although they differ in terms of capability, they all have the same function, they are sovereign, and have a centralized political system with a legitimate monopoly over the use of violence and rule making, and are not additionally subject to any higher authority (Waltz 1979:95). The main reason for the similarity between states in terms of function is thanks to the “socializing” logic of anarchy. If a state fails to emulate the successful practises of leading states in the world, they would lead themselves in a situation with a gab in power and therefore be more exposed to extinction. This result in the constant strives for survival between states and therefore they have the same function (Hobson 2000:22).
Distribution of capabilities, although states are similar in function, they differ in terms of power, i.e. a power differentiation occurs. According to Waltz there exist two types of states, “Strong” states and “Weak” states, where strong states have great power and are thus “power-makers” and can change the behaviour of other states, where weak states are thus “power-takers”, with no choice but to follow the strong states (Hobson 2000:23). Because of the nature of the anarchic system, the power differentiation forces states to adapt the “self-help” strategy in order to survive or else they would face extinction.
The institutional means of adaption: High domestic agential state power:
To Waltz, the fundamental institutional means that supports the notion of adaptive behaviour is sovereignty of the state, where the state has institutional autonomy from all non-state actors (Ibid). However, this does not imply hat states are free to do whatever they please, but that they can act free with external challenges without the interference by any external or internal intervention, specifically by non-state actors, i.e. the state has high domestic agential power and can manoeuvre independently of internal or external social forces (Hobson 2000:26).
Waltz argues that since states are units, and competition is dominant in the anarchic international society, he thus lays emphasis on the following: “Competition produces a tendency toward the sameness of the competitors” (Waltz 1979:127). Here Waltz argues about the “logic of anarchy and power differentiation”. Since strong states are more powerful than weak states in terms of power, and thus threaten the existence of weak states, they must adapt and conform into the international system.
There exists two types of adaptive strategies that stets can make use of.
- Adaption through Emulation
- Adaption through Balancing
Adaption through emulation:
Because power differentiation exists in an anarchic system, states must emulate the practises and innovations of great powers, since the failure to do this would eventually lead to an increase in vulnerability. We can talk about some kind of “demonstration effect” that the practises of great powers forces weaker states to emulate them in order to survive. This is illustrated in the following by Waltz “A self-help system is one in which those who do not help themselves, or who do so less effectively than others, will fail o prosper, will lay themselves open to dangers, will suffer.” (Waltz 1979:118). This also supports the notion that this adaptive strategy leads to the “reproduction of the anarchic system, thus leading to a reduction in the relative power gab between states, which eventually making it difficult for one state to transform the international system to a hierarchy (Hobson 2000:27).
Adaption through Balancing:
The second type of adaption is balancing. Through socialization states would become involved in balancing. Although states can emulate great powers’ practises in order to reduce the relative power gab, this does not eliminate differentiation in power throughout the international system. Thus to ensure survival, states must “balance” (ibid). Weak states balance with other weak states in opposition to strong state. However, it is important to stress out that according to Waltz this does not entail real cooperation between states. He argues that alliances are only temporarily and convenient (e.g. US & USSR during the WW2), and that the balance of power is not an institution where states consensually agree upon, but that they do that in order to maintain their survival, an thus also to prevent a hierarchy where one state is dominant.