Comparison of IR Theories

7/29/2019 Comparison of IR Theories

1/7

Realism Liberalism

Constructivism English School MarxismClassical

RealismNeorealism Liberalism Neoliberalism

Level of

analysis

Individual level

(human nature)

[Mansbach andRafferty 2008, p.

41]

Global system

[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.41]

Some individual

(e.g. John Stuart

Mill) and some onstate level (e. g.

Immanuel Kant)

[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.

41]

Global system

level


41]

Individual level in

transmission of

ideas andidentities

[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.

41]

State level,

emphasizing

dominanteconomic system

[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.

41]

Key actor(s)

Sovereign states

[e.g. Kegley and

Wittkopf 2011, p.

32]

International

system

States,

international

institutions,

global

corporations.

[Kegley and

Wittkopf 2011, p.

47]

Individuals, states,

non-state actors

Individuals,

nongovernmental

organizations,

transnational

networks.

[Kegley and

Wittkopf 2011, p.

47]

Human

nature

Aggressive and

selfish, cannot be

improved, cannot

be perfect.

[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.

41]

Benign,

perfectible,

harmony of

interest is

possible.

[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.

41]

Malleable,

changes behavior

to reflect

changing norms

in society.

[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.

41]

Benign and

perfectible under

socialism, greed

and selfishness

without socialism.

[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.

41]

Primary state

objective

Various.

[Kegley and

Survival, for both

offensive and


2/7

Wittkopf 2011, p.

35]

defensive realism.

[Kegley and

Wittkopf 2011, p.

35]

Nature and

consequences

of anarchy

Dont matter

much, may be

preferable.

[Kegley and

Wittkopf 2011, p.

43]

A big problem,

and can be

reformed through

strong

international

institution.

[Kegley and

Wittkopf 2011, p.

43]

World view

Pessimistic, war

can be managed

but not

eliminated.

Policies should

enhance power.

[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.

41]

Optimistic, wars

can be prevented

by reforms, e.g.

free trade,

economic

development,

welfare, and

democracy.

Policies should

enhance justice.


41]

Indeterminate,

depends upon the

ideas that take

root and attract

widespread

support.

[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.

41]

Optimistic: wars

are the result of

class conflict, and

can be eliminated

by the end of

capitalism and

introduction of

classless society.

Policies should

enhance equality.

Change

Key features of

global politics are

permanent, evils

such as war and

Key features of

global politics are

mutable, moving

to a positive

Key features of

global politics are

mutable though

change is

Key features of

global politics are

mutable.

[Mansbach and


3/7

poverty cannot be

eliminated.

[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.

41]

direction.

[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.

41]

impeded by

material factors,

only evolution of

ideas and

resulting change

in identities and

interests canmodify material

factors.

[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.

41]

Rafferty 2008, p.

41]

Cooperation

Individuals are

naturally

competitive.

[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.

42]

International

cooperation is

possible, but will

be difficult to

sustain.

[Kegley and

Wittkopf 2011, p.

43]

Individuals and

states can

cooperate to

overcome

collective

problems.

[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.

42]

Possible, because

international

cooperation will

reduce

selfishness.

[Kegley and

Wittkopf 2011, p.

43]

Indeterminate,

depending on

which ideas

become dominant

and the response

to such ideas.

[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.

42]

Socialist and

capitalist states

cannot cooperate.

[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.

42]

Public

opinion

Elitist, diplomacy

should be

conducted insecrecy by

professional

diplomats. Public

opinion is ill-

formed and

short-sighted.

Public diplomacy,

applauds public

opinion as anobstacle to war.

[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.

42]

Crucial in forming

intersubjective

consensusregarding norms

and ideas, to

create collective

identity.

[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.

Public opinion

reflects class

perceptions andinterests,

dominant

economic class in

society.

[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.


4/7

[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.

42]

42] 42]

National

interest

Leaders serve the

interests of the

state. Focus is

mainly on greatpowers.

International

institutions are

suspect as they

may pursue

interests other

than those of the

states.

[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.

42]

States exist to

serve the interests

of individuals.

Free trade andhuman rights are

key regardless of

state interests.

[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.

42]

National interest

is based on

national identity,

what states makeof it.

[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.

42]

States serve the

interests of the

dominant

economic class inthe society.

Economic

imperialism and

dominance over

the periphery

of poor states.

[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.

42]

International

institutions

and

organizations

States must be

independent,

autonomous, and

free to act

without limits of

sovereignty.[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.

42]

International

organizations are

arenas for states

to compete for

influence.

[Kegley andWittkopf 2011, p.

43]

Support

international

organizations as

encouraging

peace to

overcomecollective

dilemmas.

[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.

42]

Institutions are

important and will

change patters of

international

politics.

[Kegley andWittkopf 2011, p.

43]

Indeterminate.

[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.

42]

Support

transnational

institutions

created by

socialist societies.


42]

Society Tend to ignore Focus on society Intense focus on Focus on society,


5/7

the role of

society.

[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.

43]

and relations

among people

rather than state

bureaucracies.

[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.

43]

society as the

source of ideas

and identities.

[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.

43]

especially on

relations between

classes rather

than on

government.

[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.43]

Relative and

absolute gain

Actors do and

should seek

relativegain

rather than the

absolute gain.

[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.

43]

There are areas

where

participants can

all profit or lose

(variable-sum

games) and there

are others in

which the gain

made by one

actor is equivalent

to the loss of

other (zero-sum

game). Actors are

more concerned

about absolute

gains.[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.

43]

Indeterminate.

[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.

43]

Focus on relative

gains of socialists

compared to

capitalists.

[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.

43]

Security

Military and

economic security

are the principle

Security is the

primary issue.

[Kegley and

Human security

consists of far

more than

Security is less

important than

economic welfare.

Indeterminate.

[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.

Human security

consists of far

more than


6/7

issues, support

for large defense

budgets and

opposition to free

trade which can

render countries

less independent.[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.

43]

Wittkopf 2011, p.

43]

military security.

[Mansbach and

Rafferty 2008, p.

43]

[Kegley and

Wittkopf 2011, p.

43]

43] military security,

should involve

economic equality

and fulfillment of

basic material

needs.


43]

Approach topeace

Protect sovereign

autonomy and

deter rivals

through military

preparedness and

alliances.

[Kegley and

Wittkopf 2011, p.

47]

Institutional

reforms through

democratization,

open markets,

and international

law and

organization.

[Kegley and

Wittkopf 2011, p.

47]

Activists who

promote

progressive ideas

and encourage

states to adhere

to norms for

appropriate

behavior.

[Kegley and

Wittkopf 2011, p.

47]

Central

concepts

Anarchy, self-

help, national

interest, relativegains, balance of

power

[Kegley and

Wittkopf 2011, p.

47]

Collective

security,

reciprocity,international

regimes, complex

interdependence,

transnational

relations

[Kegley and

Ideas, images,

shared

knowledge,identities,

discourses, and

persuasion

leading to new

understandings

and normative


7/7

Documents

Comparison of IR Theories