Neo-liberalism collaboration, integration, the creation of an international community.

as a reaction to neo-realism






We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now


During 1980s, an institute of
neoliberalism or structural liberalism developed and paved the way for classical
liberalism. It also took considered the new realities of the global political
process: complexity of interdependence, improving regional collaboration, integration,
the creation of an international community. Neoliberalism strongly emphasizes
the interconnection of both, domestic and international, the politics and the
economy. Owing to the interdependence of countries, the potentials of cooperation
between nations should increase through international organizations, and the impact
of anarchism on the global political environment should deteriorate. Numerous tendencies and notions have appeared
within the context of neo-liberalism which sometimes can be regarded as
independent schools of conception, including the complex interdependence. On
the basis of interdependence theory, all political parties have whether greater
or smaller influence in global politics. These parties aren’t only interested
in economic partnerships, but also in developing collaborative efforts to solve
mutual and global problems. For instance, environmental protection,
non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, arms limitation, etc. are some of the
most common issues. The overall situation of any sovereign state is contingent to
its relationships with other countries and the global political system. Delimitation
of the nation’s internal and external policy becomes increasingly relative when
foreign policy depend on the internal and vise-versa due to growing
interdependence of countries around the globe. The multidimensional dependence
of countries makes the conflict perseverance of power unprofitable, while cooperation
is there to build conditions for peace and prosperity, as the trans-nationalists
The major difference between neo-liberals is that they do not only improve this
position, but also benchmark it as the starting point of a new understanding of
security. Opportunities for communication after the Cold War, spread of
democracy and new scientific achievements are complemented by amplified threats
due to the loss of the previous and the absence of new levers to regulate the
world order. Chaos and disasters, increased poverty levels, conflicts among ethnic
groups, degradation of the environment; all these and much more, in their view,
establishes the start of “future anarchy”.  It also requires an instant response from the global
community and emphasizes the problem of developing a new security system. In
the opinion of neo-liberals, the model of collaborative security is the most appropriate
tool to solve exigent problems confronting the international community.2







which is often referred as “structural realism” suggests that the theory
primarily focuses on the influences of the global system structure whenever it
explains the outcomes in global politics. Kenneth
Waltz acknowledged the authority of “neo-realism” or “new
realism”, which is occasionally also known as modern “realism”
or “structural realism”, in his work published in 1979, “The
Theory of International Politics,” reconsidered the customary theories of
“realism”. Waltz clearly defined the influence of the global system
on the country’s behavior, principally taking them into account as the elements
of the global system. Especially, the study “Neo-realism and its
critics” published in 1986 under of Robert Keohane’s editorship was broadly
known among all political experts. R. Keohane and J. Nye collaborated and published
a joint study “Transnational relations and world politics” in 1972. Then
after five years, R. Keohane published his book “Power and interdependence
of world politics in a transitional state”. In these previous studies of above
mentioned prominent scholars, the increasing role of non-state parties, especially,
the international organizations, was careful taken into account. Fundamentally,
they created neoliberal direction, even though R. Keohane referred to his theory
as “institutionalism.”3Though
the realism terminology goes back to the early 20th century, the concept of
realism has always existed in international relations. The initial patterns of
realism can be seen in Thucydides, denotes J. Donnelly. At the end of the 5th
century BC during the Peloponnesian battles, Athens, in quest of joining Milos,
sent ambassadors to the island who offered to surrender to the people. That
indicates that it was necessary to thrust aside the “noble words” of
good and evil, and consider power and interests instead “You know as well as we
do that the right in the world can only be among the equal in strength, and the
strong do what they want, and the weak suffer as they should”. The Athens ambassadors
advised the people of Milos that liberty comes from strength; Milos’s fight for
liberation is not an opposition of equals, where the defeaters get glory, and
the losers get shame. The question of self-preservation being: “expediency
and safety go together, and follow the justice and honor is dangerous”.

The Athenians noted that they did not come up with these rules whereas the
Mussolians would also do exactly the same if they were given the same
opportunities (the Myians ignored the arguments of the Athenians and were
destroyed, the island was settled by the colonists from Athens). Donnelly also highlights
Machiavelli, who stressed that well-disciplined and well-structured countries
are found on “good laws and good weapons because, without good weapons there
are no good laws, I will avoid discussing laws”.4








Neo-Liberalism and Neo-Realism in International


As the major members of the global
politics, realists consider nations and the international arena as the field of
their severe encounters. The primary driving force of the country’s activities
in the global political environment is only the national interest. Partnerships
between diverse nations are being the results of similarities of state
interests and confrontations are the consequence of differences in priorities. Throughout
the past twenty years, the size of theoretical structures in international
relations field has increased substantially. Accompanied by the increasing
analytical thoroughness of “orthodox” approaches, other various views
are emerging. Epistemology and ontology are evolving new theories that are intended
to study traditional issues of country’s behavior in internal and external
arenas. Herein, two main “traditional” directions: neo-realism and
neo-liberalism are discussed in greater detail. To begin with, in order to measure
how rising analytical rigor brought together to the dispute between neorealist
and neoliberals. Game theories can help to “explain” or to “understand”
the behavior of governments and non-state parties in the global political system.

Logically considering this problem that stimulated the borrowing of the terminology
and models of game theory to study international relations, various weaknesses
are provided. As a final point, “psychological experiment” is
conducted to identify what neo-realism and neoliberalism would be if they were
less zealous to be one of the variations of rational choice theory. Therefore, we
analyze “realism of concessions”, a simple but portable group of
statements on the country’s behavior in the modern intercontinental political system.

However, the research study suggested by the “realism of concessions”
varies amply from the program developed during the contemporary discussion of
the neo-realists and neo-liberals. It emphasizes classification issues and
national and transnational “interests” definitions, the problem of “Hobbesian
fear” (Butterfield, 1958) and the empirical research conducted by the theory that
takes numerous actual cases of international policy decisions into account.5

Similarly to the national interest notion,
the major role in the theory of political realism is performed by the balance
of forces concept. It illustrates the equilibrium situation among countries as
a formula for peace and stability perseverance. This theoretical point relies
on Hobbes’s definition of transnational relationships as an aggressive
environment where nations are relentlessly open to the threat of attack. They
are also required to preserve a coercive possible comparable with their opposing
parties. Some countries strive to increase power over others, develop and magnify
their dominant status, and ensure superiority over others with the help of international
political policies. Although, restricting the domineering ambitions of one party
of intercontinental politics is feasible only through the assistance of force
counteraction to its other substance. The global balance of power is perceived
by realists as the utmost effective means of peace perseverance. It is the violation
of the balance of power which causes wars, thus realizing and sustaining a
power balance is the primary objective of international politics.




Neo-Liberalism and
Neo-Realism Position Characterizations


The concurrences and variances in the outlooks
of the neo-realists and neo-liberalist have already presented joint work of
American neo-realists and neo-liberals which is published in 1993 by Columbia
University Press. David Baldwin who edited and acted as an arbitrator, found
six major arguments describing the points of two directions:


1) Neo-liberals are aware that the global
political system is categorized by some “anarchy”. Unlike the
neo-realists, who emphasize the fundamental importance of international system,
Neo-liberals have confidence in specific models of interactions developed among
countries (R.Akselrod, R.Keohane).


2) The neo-realists and the neo-liberals share
similar views that international collaboration is possible. However, unlike neo-liberals,
the neo-realists opine that cooperation is difficult and reliant to government


3) Neo-realists stress that partnerships
bring relative profits and for neo-liberals it is undeniably valuable for its contributors.


4) The enthusiasts of both methodologies come
to an agreement that such priorities of countries as state power and economic strength;
however, neo-realists emphasize the significance to the primary priority, and
bear beards to the subsequent priorities.


5) The neo-realists, unlike the neo-liberals,
stress the significance of the real likelihoods, the resources of countries
rather than their political objectives.


6) Lastly, the neo-realists realize the impacts
and impacts of international organizations on foreign relations, but are
certain of the fact that neo-liberals overstate their significance.

Few American authors, including J. Hertz,
I. Claud, D. Nye, cogitate the differences in theories between neo-liberalism
and neo-realism as insignificant and even opine that they have the same views
of “realistic liberalism”.6














of the ‘neo’ theoretical methodologies have their dissimilarities, neo-realists
capitalize essentially on high politics and neo-liberals concentrate on low
politics. However, these two share common views. They have similar views on
comparable epistemology and ontology, concentrate on common questions, and share
a number of assumptions about global politics. The views mutually shared by
neo-neo indicate that there is no mutual authority and governments are unitary
and interest-maximizing parties. In conclusion, I strongly believe that the development
of both neo-realism and neo-liberal institutionalism generated various theories
that falls under one radar, and consequently causes heated arguments from the
attacks of positivists. In
general, the neo-liberals, whose outlooks have mainly reflected the tendencies
in the evolution of foreign relations during the last decades, are more prone
to cooperation with their oppositions in comparison to neo-realists. Somehow,
it is challenging not to approve the withdrawal of one of the neoliberal
institutionalism leaders.  The finale of
the Cold War surprisingly brought the academic arguments among realists and
institutionalists together. Inter-country cooperation contents are mainly
issues of general military security for the neo-realists, whereas as per neo-realist
problems of mutual economic advantages. As per the entire and relative advantages
of cooperation, neo-liberals consider the achievement of absolute profits as the
driving force of interstate cooperation. For neo-realists, it is challenging to
establish partnerships even when all participants can realize absolute advantages,
since no country agrees to gain lower advantage than any other. Anxiety concerning
the relative advantages, thus, is likely to hamper inter-country cooperation. In
international political arena, countries are pushing towards
“fairness” in the distribution cooperation benefits, which exemplifies
the balance of opportunities perseverance existent until cooperation. Overall, the
alternativeness of neo-realism and neoliberalism is rather restricted: in a
sense, their understandings on global politics have more similarities than
differences; therefore, disputes between these two institutions influences limited
sector of international political science.

1 Liberalism and
neoliberal concepts of international relations, Studwood magazine, 2017-2018,
Accessed :05.01.2018


Neoliberalism, Neomarxism: Their differences from the canonical paradigms,
Megalektsii Journal, 

Link: Accessed :05.01.2018


3 A. Novikov, Theory of
International Relations 2009.

4 Steven Walt,
What?Would?a?Realist?World?Have?Looked?Like? Foreign Policy 8 January 2016




5Neoliberalism and
Neorealism, International Affairs, published: 15.03.2013, Link: Accessed: 05.01.2018


6 Neoliberalism and Neorealism, International
Affairs,  Published: 15.03.2013, Link: Accessed: 05.01.2018