Neorealism, a theory largely developed by Waltz, and neoliberalism predominately represented by Keohane and Nye are fundamental perspectives on the world of politics. Each stance includes a range of particular questions and assumptions of the international system and the forces in the global political environment. The debate between these two contemporary and influential theories has generated great scholarly discourse, which makes this topic interesting to explore in further detail. Neorealism and neoliberalism undeniably share some characteristics, for instance both ideologies accept the presence of anarchy within the international relations. However it is also important to appreciate the distance between them on other groups, such as the motive behind states’ cooperation. This essay will investigate particular themes that both theories provide comment on to accurately assess their theoretical similarity. The analysis will look at specific themes; rational choice theory, state-centric approach, appropriate amount of power for states acquire, amount of power states should acquire, effectiveness of international cooperation, nature of anarchy and relative and absolute. The investigation will arrive at the conclusion that neorealism and neoliberalism are not ‘close theoretical siblings’, largely based on the areas investigated within this essay and in particular, relative and absolute gains.
Neorealism and neoliberalism can be deemed similar with respect to their unanimous appreciation of rational choice theory. Brown and Ainley (2005) provide comment on this aspect of the debate, highlighting that despite the clear distinction in terms of national cooperation between neorealist and neoliberals; both theories share a commitment to rational choice theory. Brown and Ainley continue to regard this as a significant similarity, they state that it made the theories a part of the “same broad movement”. Although the thinkers noticed a connection that they termed a ‘broad movement’, it implies that this area of thought encompasses a range of different ideological characteristics. This indicates that there still is a large variation in the principles and characteristics of the theories within rational choice theory. Therefore there is a stronger argument that neorealism and neoliberalism are theoretically dissimilar despite being classified under the same theoretical branch.
It is also important to acknowledge the significant similarities between these ideologies at the ground level as they share a state-centric basis. Sterling-Folker (2010) indicates that neoliberals and neorealists are in agreement that states are at the centre of the interpretation of world politics. This proposes that states are global monopolising entities and utility maximisers; operating rationally. The similarity continues as neoliberalism appears to echo neorealism with respect to the unified entities pursuing specific aims, with these states making decisions based on self interests and domestic priorities. As Sterling-Folker indicates, states in the neorealist and neoliberal stance adopt a calculated “cost- to- benefit” critique of potential consequences and choices. The almost identical definition of the characteristics of states presented by neorealism and neoliberalism, enforces that the two theories are largely similar. Moreover, the unanimous placing of states at the centre of international relations further illustrates the similarity of these theories.
Nonetheless, the theories begin to diverge when comparing the perspectives of the neorealists and neoliberalists on the appropriate amount of power that these states should aim to achieve. Baldwin (1993) indicates that there is a significant contention even between neorealists about the appropriate amount of power that states should aim to acquire. Offensive realists identify states as power maximisers with their ultimate gain to hegemony to secure and guarantee survival (Mearsheimer, 2010). On the other hand, defensive realists recognise that the international system creates strong incentives for states to increase power but maintain the idea that states should refrain from trying to maximise power. Waltz (1979) indicates that states should aim to gain the “appropriate amount of power”. This is noted by Baldwin (1993) drawing upon specific cases such as Napoleonic France in 1792-1815 and the forces that aimed to neutralise the strength of this progressing hegemonic power of the 17th century. More recently, the rise of Imperial Germany and Nazi Germany in the 1900s serve as key examples as to how other forces will collaborate to restrict and suppress the growing strength. However neoliberals place a strong emphasis on the power of institutions in comparison to states, identifying that state power is not as poignant to that of neorealists (Sterling-Folker, 2010). This prominent contrast between the neoliberals, defensive and offensive neorealists on their position in terms of the gains, portrays a strong difference. Neoliberals focuses largely on collective improvement and gains, whereas the neorealists present a more selfish outlook of state’s intentions.
However, both neorealism and neoliberalism place an emphasis on the importance of international cooperation and alliances, possibly indicating that the two theories are similar with respect to this topic. Hughes and Lai (2011) highlight the similarity between neorealism and neoliberalism as he states that the neoliberal institutionalist account asserts that international cooperation is a difficult thing to achieve. This difficulty in forging relationships between states is noted by both theories as Sterling-Folker (2010) indicates that within the anarchical environment which insights fear and uncertainty that both theories appreciate, it will be difficult to obtain positive collective outcomes. The similarity in appreciating the difficulty in forming international cooperation and bonds indicates that the two theories are largely similar.
It can be argued that neoliberalism and neorealism are similar with respect to their understanding of the nature of anarchy within the international system. Brown and Ainley (2005) indicate that neoliberals accept that anarchy, uncertainty and security dilemmas are genuine issues that states face, much like neorealists. However there is contention as to the significance these theories place on anarchy. Krasner (1983) offering a neorealist perspective, suggests that there is a differentiation between the “independent decision making” in international regimes and infers that it revolves around arming self interests of autonomous states in a state of anarchy that results in them generating international regimes. However the neoliberalist perspective proposes that the significance of anarchy within the international system has been largely embellished and overstated by neorealists, which ultimately results in the underestimated perception of the strength of international interdependence (Lipson, 1984). The strong contrast between the perspectives noted here in terms of the significance of anarchy within the international environment provides key evidence to suggest that these two theories, neorealism and neoliberalism are distanced on these grounds.
Neorealism and neoliberalism are in agreement that the anarchical intentional political environment restricts the efficiency of international cooperative organisations. Although Brown and Finely (2005) indicate that both neoliberals and neorealists are in acceptance that the anarchical international system limits the generation of peaceful alliances and cooperation. However Sterling- Folker (2010) writing from a neoliberal stance, indicates that international cooperation has become far more achievable than previously noted. It is proposed that this transition secured the progression of international institutions, including both formal and informal which perform as a vital aspect of daily activities of modern international politics. This can be illustrated by the work of the United Nations in the present day in companions to the League of Nations. This advancement indicates that the neorealist stance has not taken into consideration the significant progression. Thus suggesting that the ideologies are very different once again in their appreciation for transnational and international organisations that work toward forming global peace.
The difference between these theories are also noticed when considering the differing reasons behind forming international cooperative organisations or alliances. Neorealists propose that the motivation for states to create international connections is to protect their interests against the anarchical system (Brown and Ainley, 2005). Whereas Keohane and Nye (2001) offering a neoliberalist perspective, argue that interdependence, specifically economic interdependence, is now an important feature of world politics as a means of creating international institutions with the aim to avoid market failures, and forming trust between nations. This comparison highlights a distinct difference in the perception of states by the two theories. Neorealists appear to understand the international environment as far more brutish and that states enter into alliances simply for personal security, whereas neoliberals place a higher significance on peaceful interaction, such as trade behind international cooperation. Due to this pivotal contrast, it forces the understanding that neorealism and neoliberalism are not similar in terms of their perspective of state intentions. The incentives for international organisation and cooperation present a strong argument that neorealism and neoliberalism are significantly different.
In addition, the neoliberal thought is criticised extensively from the neorealist stance for its lack of appreciation for survival being the main driving force for state action in the anarchical international space. Grieco (1988) proposes that the neoliberal and neorealist stance with respect to the nature and consequences of anarchy are at their core, separate. Grieco declares that neoliberal thought disregards the importance of concerns about survival as a key drive for state action. Instead, neoliberals place a bigger emphasis on the role of economic gain as a main concern for states (Jayal and Mehta, 2010). The significant and poignant difference in the perception between theories as to what states understand as important provides a strong argument to highlight that these two theories are far too separate to be regarded as metaphorically, close theoretical siblings.
Another core distinction between neoliberalism and neorealism is the emphasis they place on relative and absolute gains. According to Baldwin (1993) there is a misconception to simply state that one theory can be characterised to be solely concerned with relative or absolute gains because there are no explicit statements that indicate this. This provides however minimal reason to argue that the two theories are not so profoundly contrasting. Grieco (1988) offers an extensive analysis of the two camps, largely finding key distinction with absolute and relative gains from cooperation. Grieco indicates that the neoliberal perspective has enforced its position on the significance of absolute gains as a result of international cooperation with respect to common interests.
Waltz (1979) highlights that for neorealists, absolute gains are not sufficient to elicit their cooperation if both sides of the negotiation are concerned with how the other will improve their position. This implies that neorealists identify that states are far more concerned with home state security and personal development, measuring their improvements against another states’ advancements to maintain a relative lead. On the other hand, neoliberal stance highlights a fundamental concern with universal and collective advancement and progression. As a result of this distinct difference in progression concerns between these two contemporary theories; it enforces the consensus that they are profoundly dissimilar with their understanding of state cooperation and negotiation. The two theories present these differences as a result of the areas each camp draws their attention to in terms of the limits to cooperation.
In conclusion, there is strong evidence to support that neoliberalism and neorealism are similar in terms of their understanding that states are at the centre of the international system, the basis that state actors are largely and predominantly concerned with material power and capabilities. Furthermore the argument that these theories are close in theoretical terms is highlighted by their united consensus that the international environment is anarchical. However the magnitude at which these theories begin to diverge promotes that these ideologies are too separate to be deemed “close theoretical siblings”. The evidence supporting this is highlighted with the attention each theory places on relative or absolute gains. Additionally, the reasons behind forming international cooperative organisations or alliances, the appropriate amount of power that states should aim to achieve provide compelling evidence that neoliberalism is an ideology more concerned with peaceful collective cooperation in the international system. Whereas neorealism, with respect to the evidence highlighted, that generally it enforces the a vision of a self interested and power driven state. The areas in which these theories diverge are more significant than those in which they are in acceptance, therefore the theories cannot be labelled “close theoretical siblings”. References
Baldwin, D.A. (1993) Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate. New York: Columbia Press.
Brown, C. and Ainley, K. (2005) Understanding International Relations. New York: Palgrave.
Grieco, J. (1993) Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Hughes, C.W. and Lai, Y.M. (2011) Security Studies: A Reader. New York: Routledge.
Jayal, N.G. and Mehta, P.B. (2010) The Oxford Companion to Politics in India. USA: Oxford University Press.
Keohane, R, O., &, Nye, J, S., 2001. Power and Interdependence. New York: Longman.
Mearsheimer, J.J. (2010) Structural Realism. In: Dunne. T., Milja. K., and Smith. S eds. International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 78- 93.
Sterling-Folker, J. (2010). Neoliberalism. In: Dunne.T., Milja. K., and Smith. S eds. International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 116-134.
Waltz, K.N. (1979) Theory of International Politics. London: McGraw-Hill.